BANGLADESH: Criminal justice through the prism of capital ... - FIDH

BANGLADESH 

Criminal justice through 

the prism of capital punishment 

and the fight against terrorism 

Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal 

in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a 

spirit of brotherhood. Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, 

without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, 

national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the 

basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person 

belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. 

Article 3: Everyone has 

the right to life, liberty and security 

October 2010 

N°548a

This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. 

The contents of this documents are the sole responsability of FIDH and Odhikar and can 

under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union. 

Cover: Dhaka Central Jail 2 / Titre du rapport – FIDH

I. Introduction............................................................... 4 

Context of the Mission ......................................................... 4 

Legal History of Criminal Law in Bangladesh ....................................... 4 

II. Bangladesh and international human rights law................................. 7 

Ratification of International Human Rights Instruments................................ 7 

Cooperation with UN Human Rights Mechanisms.................................... 7 

The National Human Rights Commission........................................... 8 

III. The death penalty in Bangladesh............................................ 11 

Crimes Punishable by Death.................................................... 11 

Mandatory Death Sentences .................................................... 12 

Available Statistics on the Death Penalty - Transparency.............................. 13 

IV. The administration of criminal justice. ...................................... 15 

Police Custody and Arrest...................................................... 15 

The Trial Phase.............................................................. 18 

Bail. .................................................................... 18 

Filing of false cases......................................................... 18 

Courts and the judiciary...................................................... 19 

Integrity of the judiciary................................................... 20 

International crimes Tribunal............................................... 22 

Appeals and clemency....................................................... 22 

The BDR Case............................................................. 24 

Prison Conditions ............................................................ 24 

Executions.................................................................. 26 

Methods of Executions. ..................................................... 26 

V. Terrorism................................................................ 27 

The questionable compliance of the new anti-terrorism legislation 

with Bangladesh human rights commitment........................................ 28 

Vague terminology in the ATA................................................. 28 

Length of police custody facilitates abuse of power. ............................... 29 

ATA crimes non-bailable ..................................................... 30 

Specially-constituted tribunals invite abuse....................................... 30 

Anti-terrorist surveillance legislation violates rights to privacy and fair trial ............. 31 

Restriction of freedom of speech............................................... 32 

Mobilisation against the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 

VI. Torture................................................................. 34 

An Inappropriate Legislation ................................................... 34 

A culture of Impunity Consecrated by Bangladeshi Law .............................. 35 

Impunity for Enforced Disappearances............................................ 36 

VII. Conclusion and Recommendations. ........................................ 37 

VIII. Appendices 

Status of Commitment to International Human Rights Treaties of Bangladesh. ............ 41 

Declarations and/or Reservations of Bangladesh on Human Rights Treaties ............... 42 

Leading Cases on Death Penalty from 1987 to 2009.................................. 44 

Persons met by the FIDH/Odhikar mission......................................... 50 

BANGLADESH: Criminal justice through the prism of capital punishment and the fight against terrorism / 3

Introduction 

Context of the mission 

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) fact-finding mission’s mandate was 

to enquire on the death penalty and the administration of criminal justice in Bangladesh, with 

a focus on people convicted for so-called terrorist offences. The principal objective was to 

assess the respect of the fair trial guarantees, in particular the prohibition of torture, in capital 

cases. The mission also attempted to look at the specific situation of persons suspected of 

having committed so-called terrorist offences, and determine whether there are specificities in 

terms of criminal procedure or practices in their regard, that contravene international human 

rights law. 

The mission was composed of three representatives: Mr. Mouloud Boumghar (Algeria/France); 

Ms. Laurie Berg (Australia) and Ms. Nymia Pimentel Simbulan (Philippines), and was supposed 

to take place from 23rd to 31st January 2010. However, FIDH and Odhikar decided to delay 

it because the Supreme Court was expected to deliver a final judgment in a highly sensitive 

case involving the death penalty. Indeed, on 27 January 2010, the Supreme Court upheld the 

death sentences against 15 persons convicted for the killing in 1975 of the first President of 

Bangladesh. Five of them were executed the next day. 

The mission eventually took place from 1st to 9 April 2010. In Jessore, Narail and Jhenaidah, 

the mission met with families of death row prisoners. Most meetings took place in Dhaka, the 

capital of Bangladesh.The mission met with a range of human rights NGOs, academics, judges, 

journalists, lawyers, the National Human Rights Commission, people prosecuted under the 

Anti-Terrorism Act and families of death row inmates. The mission also had the opportunity to 

meet with several representatives of the authorities, including Mr. Justice Md. Fazlul Karim, 

Chief Justice of Bangladesh ; Mr. Mahbubey Alam Attorney General for Bangladesh ; Barrister 

Shafiq Ahmed Minister of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs; Mr. Ashraful Islam Khan, 

the Inspector General of Prisons, and several Members of Parliament. 

FIDH wishes to thank the authorities for their cooperation during the mission and their acceptance 

to meet with its members. It regrets that access to prisons was refused though no reason 

has been given and hope that this trend could be reversed in the future, since it would allow 

to have first-hand information on prison conditions, rather than relying on indirect sources. 

FIDH also wishes to thank Odhikar, its member organization in Bangladesh, without which 

the mission and this report would not have been possible. 

Legal History of Bangladesh: Criminal Law 

The Indian Subcontinent, comprising of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, has a long history of 

the use of capital punishment. A stay in this form of punishment came at the time of Emperor 

Ashoka, who preached peace, Buddhism and non-violence during the 2 nd century BC. During 

his reign, capital punishment was banned. However, this all changed after his reign ended and 

by the end of the 15 th century BC the states that made up India were wrought with warfare and 

4 / BANGLADESH: Criminal justice through the prism of capital punishment and the fight against terrorism

intrigue and capital punishment was extremely common 1 . During the Moghul era in the early 

16 th century, capital punishment was retained as the highest form of punishment and connected 

with class and caste. A Chinese visitor to India in the 5 th century BC observed that a Sudra 2 

who insulted a Bhramin faced death whereas a Bhramin who killed a Sudra was given a light 

penalty, such as a fine – the same penalty he might have incurred if he had killed a dog. 3 

The present legal and judicial system of Bangladesh owes its origin mainly to two hundred 

years British rule in the Indian Sub-Continent although some elements of it are remnants of 

Pre-British period tracing back to Hindu and Muslim administration. The legal system of the 

present day emanates from a mixed system which has structure, legal principles and concepts 

modeled on both Indo-Mughal and English law. The Indian sub-continent has a history of 

over five hundred years with Hindu and Muslim periods which preceded the British period, 

and each of these early periods had a distinctive legal system of its own. The ancient India 

was divided into several independent states and the king was the Supreme authority of each 

state. So far as the administration of justice was concerned, the king was considered to be the 

fountain of justice and was entrusted with the Supreme authority of administration of justice 

in his kingdom. The Muslim period starts with the invasion of the Muslim rulers in the Indian 

sub-continent in 1100 A.D. The Hindu Kingdoms began to disintegrate gradually with the 

invasion of Muslim rulers at the end of eleventh and at the beginning of twelfth century. When 

the Muslims conquered all the states, they brought with them the theory based on the Holy 

Quran. According to the Holy Quran, sovereignty lies in the hand of Almighty Allah. 4 

The so-called ‘modernisation’ of the legal system began with the British and their Royal 

Charters. The East India Company gained control and was ultimately powerful enough to 

take part in the administration of justice with the local authorities. The Charter of 1726, 

issued by King George I, gave Letters Patent to the East India Company and was the gateway 

through which other legal and judicial systems entered India from England. In 1753, another 

Charter was issued by King George II to remove the defects of the previous Charter. In 1773, 

the House of Commons passed the Regulation Act to improve the judicial system and under 

it, the King issued another Charter in 1774 establishing the Supreme Court of Judicature at 

Calcutta (now Kolkata). On 15 August 1772, Lord Hastings drew up a collection of laws that 

became the first British Indian law code in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. The code contained 

37 sections addressing both civil and criminal law and a new system of courts took over from 

the slowly defunct Moghul ones. The new court system provided for separate civil (dewani) 

and criminal (fowjdari) courts. In 1801, another Supreme Court was established in Madras 

and one in Bombay in 1824. 

Between the 1790’s and the 1820’s, the East India Company promulgated the largest number 

of Regulations that brought about changes in the criminal justice system in the sub continent. 

In 1853, the Law Commission was established in India and the British Crown replaced the 

East India Company in 1859. The Penal Code was enacted in 1860, followed by the Criminal 

Procedure Code 1898, following the efforts of Lord Macaulay, an English lawyer, in bringing 

1. For more information see Johnson, David T. and Zimrig, Franklin. The Next Frontier: National Development, Political Change and the 

Death Penalty in Asia. Oxford University Press 2009. 

2. A lower Hindu caste. Bhramins are the highest caste. 

3. For more information see Johnson, David T. and Zimrig, Franklin. The Next Frontier: National Development, Political Change and the 

Death Penalty in Asia. Oxford University Press 2009. 

4. www.bangladesh.gov.bd/index.phpoption=com_content&task=view&id=58&Itemid=137. 


together the ‘native’ and British systems into a single criminal law. With them, laws such as 

the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the Evidence Act 1872 were also enacted. 

It took nearly three decades to give final shape to the codification of criminal law in British 

India. This codification is the result of the strenuous effort of two law commissions. The first 

of these commissions was established in 1837 in India and was led by Thomas Babington 

Macaulay. The second Commission was established in England in 1853. One of the controversial 

issues during the period was the separate dispensation provided to European subjects 

in India and the Indians. They came under the jurisdiction of separate sets of courts and laws. 

Equality of protection under the same law and a common judicature based on the principle of 

rule of law became issues of paramount importance. This is where Macaulay intervened. He 

defined the principle on which the codification of law must be based. He defined the principle 

as uniformity where it was possible to achieve and diversity where necessary. This was the 

guiding principle which initiated the process leading to the abolition of the dual system of 

judicial administration and the establishment of a secular legal system. 

The process culminated, after much debate, changes and discussion, in the enactment of the 

Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) and the Criminal Procedure Code (Act XXV of 1898). 

These two Codes laid the foundation of criminal law in British India. After 1947(the partition 

of India and Pakistan), the title of the Indian Penal Code was changed to that of the Pakistan 

Penal Code. Similarly, after 1971 (the independence of Bangladesh from Pakistan), the Pakistan 

Penal Code came to be known simply as the ‘Penal Code’ in independent Bangladesh. Except 

for the changes in title the Penal Code more or less remained an immutable document with 

only minor modifications. The same can be said of the Code of Criminal Procedure1898. 


II. Bangladesh and 

International Human 

Rights Law 

Ratification of international human rights instruments 

The People’s Republic of Bangladesh (Bangladesh) has bound itself to upholding human rights 

law by committing to a number of international human rights treaties 5 . Bangladesh therefore 

has the obligation to take legislative measures in accordance with the treaties that it has ratified, 

as well as upholding their implementation on every level. 

In a number of the international human rights treaties ratified or acceded to by the People’s 

Republic of Bangladesh, however, the government had registered some declarations and 

reservations to particular articles of the treaties (see table in annex 2). Paramount among these 

is the reservation to Article 14 paragraph 1 of the Convention Against Torture (CAT), on the 

ground that Bangladesh will apply it “in consonance with the existing laws and legislation of 

the country”. 6 It is to be noted that there is no definition of ‘torture’ in the domestic legislation 

of Bangladesh. 

Furthermore, Bangladesh has not yet ratified nor has it acceded to a number of international 

human rights treaties, particularly the Optional Protocols to the two International Covenants, 

i.e. the ICESCR and the ICCPR. The Second Optional Protocol of 15 December 1989 to the 

ICCPR aims at abolishing the death penalty. Likewise, it has not yet ratified or acceded to the 

Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (CAT). This important instrument mandates 

State Parties to allow members or experts of independent international and national bodies to 

conduct regular visits to places like jails, detention centres, state penitentiaries and military 

camps, where individuals deprived of their liberty are kept, to investigate cases of torture, 

cruel and ill treatment or punishment. 7 Neither is Bangladesh a State Party to the International 

Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Moreover, As a 

major sending country of migrant workers 8 , many of whom find themselves exposed to grave 

abuse and exploitation, ratification of the International Convention on the Protection of the 

Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, signed in 1998, would send a 

strong signal of Bangladesh’s commitment to ensuring the protection of its citizens abroad. 

Cooperation with UN human rights mechanisms 

As a State Party to international human rights instruments, the government of Bangladesh has 

the obligation to submit periodic reports to the treaty-monitoring bodies established by the 

international human rights instruments. Those reports detail the efforts carried out at national 

5. See table in annex on ratified human rights instruments. 

6. visit www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat-reserve.htm 

7. Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Degrading or Ill Treatment or Punishment 

8. International Migration Guide. http://uk.oneworld.net/guides/migrationgclid=CJSj2Pvsl6MCFcdS6wodc3vKtg (Accessed: 1 August 2010). 


level by the authorities in order to implement the relevant international conventions. Although 

the government of Bangladesh submitted periodic reports to various treaty bodies over the 

past years, such reports are overdue to the Human Rights Committee 9 , the Committee on 

Economic, Social and Cultural rights 10 and the Committee Against Torture 11 . All of them are 

initial reports, which means that the authorities have not yet submitted a single report under 

those conventions. 12 

Several requests by Special Rapporteurs have likewise been made to the Bangladesh government 

to be invited to conduct field visits and gather data on alleged violations of human rights. 

Among these were the request for an invitation from the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, 

Summary or Arbitrary Executions, made in 2006 and reiterated in 2008 and 2009. 13 In 2007, 

the Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers requested to visit the country 

to look into the state of the country’s judicial system and the administration of justice. 14 

These requests have not been granted by the government to this date, in spite of the fact that 

accepting those invitations is included in the Universal Periodic Review’s recommendations. 15 

The government of Bangladesh replied to that recommendation as follows: “Bangladesh has 

been fully cooperating with the special procedure mechanisms. Some special rapporteurs have 

visited in recent years. A few requests are pending. We are in the process of finalizing their 

requests and we expect the visits to begin very soon.” 16 

The National Human Rights Commission of Bangladesh (NHRC) 

In application of the National Human Rights Commission Ordinance 2007 (Ordinance 40 of 

2007), the National Human Rights Commission of Bangladesh was established and came into 

existence in September 2008. It was created by the President on 1 December 2008 and initially 

composed of a Chairman and two Commissioners, with Justice Amirul Kabir Chowdhury, a 

retired judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, as Chairman. 17 

However, with the passage of the National Human Rights Commission Act 2009 (Act 53 of 

2009) on 14 July 2009, the composition of the Commission was expanded to a maximum of 

7 members, i.e. the Chairperson and up to six Members. The Act also stipulates that one member 

of the Commission must be a woman and another from an ethnic group. A full-fledged NHRC 

under the present Act has been reconstituted appointing a new full time chairman and one full 

time member and five part time members on 22 July 2010 as per provision of the law. The 

Selection Committee has the authority to recommend the names of the members of the NHRC 

to the President for appointment, who then appoints the members. 18 

9. HRC, the body established under the ICCPR to monitor its implementation. 

10. Established under the ICESCR. 

11. Under the Convention Against Torture, or CAT. 

12. www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/NewhvVAllSPRByCountryOpenView&Start=1&Count=250&Expand=14.2#14.2 (Accessed: 7 August 2010). 

13. www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/countryvisitsa-e.htm#bangladesh (Accessed: 8 August 2010). 

14. Ibid. 

15. A/HRC/11/18, 5 October 2009, Recommendation n° 12. 

16. A/HRC/11/18/Add.1, 9 June 2009. 

17. National Human Rights Commission. National Human Rights Commission Marches Ahead. (Brochure). 

18. The Act provides for a selection procedure of members to the National Human Rights Commission by a seven- member Selection 

Committee. The Selection Committee will be headed by an Appellate Division Judge nominated by the Chief Justice and will also include 

the Cabinet Secretary; Attorney General; Comptroller and Auditor General; Chairman, Public Service Commission; and the Law Secretary 

as members. In particular, the Act provides that the selection of the members of the Commission is made by a committee predominantly 

made up of Government officials. 


Consistent with the Paris Principles on national human rights institutions, the NHRC is 

mandated to: 19 

– investigate complaints on human rights violations filed by any individual or any person on 

behalf of the victim/s; 

– visit places where persons deprived of their liberty are detained and make recommendations 

for the improvement of these places; 

– review laws and legislations if consistent with human rights treaties and standards, conduct 

studies on laws and international human rights instruments and provide advise to the 

Government; 

– coordinate with human rights NGOs and institutions; and 

– take concrete actions like mediation and arbitration to address human rights violations. 

Former Chairman Justice Amirul Kabir Chowdhury told the FIDH/Odhikar delegation in an 

interview that as of March 2010, the NHRC had received 112 complaints, mostly against the 

police forces, 20 and claimed that 65 have been “disposed of.” Other sources, however, assert 

that the NHRC has failed to make a single field visit, initiate an investigation of a complaint, 

or provide legal assistance to a victim of a human rights violation. 21 

The cases of human rights violations handled by the NHRC involved misuse of power by 

police authorities, torture of detainees or under trial prisoners, killing of civilians under police 

custody, abduction allegedly perpetrated by Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) 22 , killing in “cross 

fire”, and illegal arrest and detention. 23 

Yet, in addressing these complaints, the most common action taken by the NHRC was to 

refer the case to another government agency, usually the law enforcement office that ranks 

above and oversees the accused officers. The ranking law enforcement officers are expected to 

conduct an investigation and submit a report on their findings. The problem with this process 

is the issue of partiality and conflict of interest. The people expected to conduct the enquiries 

are officers belonging to the very agencies to which the alleged human rights violators 

are attached. There is an obvious risk that the higher authorities may protect their ranks and 

institution rather than unveil the truth. 

An example of the conflict of interest that this practice enmeshes is that of referring human 

rights violation complaints against members of the police forces with the rank of Inspector 

primarily to the Office of the Inspector General of Police (IGP). This referral procedure is 

further mandated by The Police Officers (Special, Provisions) Ordinance, 1976 (Ordinance 

No. LXXXIV of 1976) 24 Clearly, the lack of independent investigation of the claims is likely 

to result in a dismissal of the claim, or at best in a highly questionable finding. 

19. Ibid. pp. 2-3. 

20. Interview with NHRC Chair Justice Amirul Kabir Chowdhury. Dhaka, Bangladesh, 6 April 2010. Dhaka. 

21. Manpozer shortage cripples NHRC, The Daily Star, 21 April 2010, www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.phpnid 

=151605. 

22. The RAB, an elite force created by the Bangladeshi government in March 2004, is in operating since June 2004. The objective is 

supposedly to curb organised crime. However, RAB is responsible for a number of extrajudicial executions (“death in crossfire”) and 

there is also an alarming number of deaths in RAB custody. 

23. Ibid. pp. 5-8. 

24. The Police Officers (Special, Provisions) Ordinance, 1976Ordinance No. LXXXIV of 1976. www.police.gov.bd/index5.phpcategory=23 

(Accessed: 8 August 2010). 


For the NHRC to maintain its independence and impartiality, improvements in the conduct of 

its work are necessary. Strengthening its investigative functions and enhancing the capabilities 

of its staff are essential to more effectively fulfil its mandate of advancing and promoting 

human rights, especially of the impoverished and marginalized sections of the population. 

In response to a UNDP-funded study of the fledgling NHRC in 2008 that recommended a 

workforce of 128 members, six workers were hired. Recently, approval has been granted to 

hire 28 more staff members. 25 

25. Ibid., note 13. 


III. The Death Penalty 

in Bangladesh 

Crimes punishable by death 

A broad range of crimes are currently subject to the death penalty. These include crimes set 

out in the Penal Code 1860, such as: 

– waging war against Bangladesh (s.121), 

– abetting mutiny (s.132), 

– giving false evidence upon which an innocent person suffers death (s.194), 

– murder (s.302), 

– assisting the suicide of a child or insane person (s.305), 

– attempted murder by life-convicts (s.307), 

– kidnapping of a child under the age of ten (with intent to murder, grievously hurt, rape or 

enslave the child) and 

– armed robbery resulting in murder (s.396). 

In addition, other legislative regimes enumerate offences punishable by death. The Special 

Powers Act 1974, which establishes emergency police powers to maintain national security, 

makes provision for the death penalty for the offences of: 

– sabotage (s.15), 

– hoarding of goods or dealing on the black market (s.25), 

– counterfeiting (s.25A), smuggling (s.25B), and 

– poisoning or contamination of consumables (s.25C) or attempt of any of these offences 

(s.25D). 

A range of offences related to firearms and explosives also attract the death penalty, 26 as do 

offences under the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance 2008. 

Finally, a range of laws designed to prevent violence against women and children prescribe death 

as punishment. Under legislation known as the Women and Children Repression Prevention 

Act, passed in 2000, the death sentence is available for: 

– murder or attempted murder involving burning, poison or the use of acid (s.4), 

– causing grievous hurt by the above substances if eyesight or hearing capacity or face or 

breast or reproductive organs are damaged (s.4(2)(ka)), 

– trafficking of women and children for illegal or immoral acts (s.5 and 6), 

– kidnapping (s.8), 

– sexual assault of women or children occasioning death (s.9(2)), 

– committing dowry murder (s.11), and 

– maiming of children for begging purposes. 

26. The Arms Act 1878, s 20A (use of unlicensed firearms for murder); the Explosives Act 1884, s 12 (abetment or attempt to commit 

offences punishable by death); the Explosive Substances Act 1908, s 3 (causing explosion likely to endanger life or property). 


In total, twelve offences under this law are punishable by the death sentence, of which two 

are simply attempted crimes. The Acid Crime Control Act 2002 makes the following crimes 

punishable by death: causing death by acid (s.4), causing hurt by acid in a way which totally 

or partially destroys eyesight, hearing capacity or defacing or destroying face, breasts or 

reproductive organs (s.5(ka)). 

The ICCPR expressly states in Article 6(2) that a sentence of death may be imposed only for 

the most serious crimes. The Human Rights Committee has stated that “the expression ‘most 

serious crimes’ must be read restrictively to mean that the death penalty should be a quite 

exceptional measure.” 27 In addition, the UN Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights 

of those facing the death penalty state that crimes punishable by death should “not go beyond 

intentional crimes with lethal or other extremely grave consequences” (emphasis added). 28 

The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has further 

stated that “the death penalty should be eliminated for crimes such as economic crimes and 

drug related offences.” 29 Following this line of statutory interpretation, the shocking breadth 

of crimes that attract the death penalty under Bangladeshi law breaches the ICCPR due to the 

economic and non-lethal nature of several of the crimes, such as dealing goods on the black 

market or counterfeiting. 

A General Comment on Article 6 of the ICCPR, adopted in 1982, by the Human Rights 

Committee established that this article “refers generally to abolition [of the death penalty] in 

terms which strongly suggest (...) that abolition is desirable. The Committee concludes that 

“all measures of abolition should be considered as progress in the enjoyment of the right to 

life.” 30 One may consequently consider that the adoption of legislation providing for capital 

punishment after signature and accession by Bangladesh to the ICCPR in 2000 goes against 

the spirit of the Covenant, which is particularly the case for the Acid Crime Control Act of 

2002 and the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009. 

Mandatory Death Sentences 

Under the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act of 2000, causing death for dowry 

(s11(ka)) is a crime punishable with mandatory death penalty, in other words no other sentence 

is available. 

Mandatory death sentences are cause for grave concern as they deprive the judiciary of 

the discretion to consider extenuating circumstances relating to the crime or the accused. 

The obvious injustice that can result from a mandatory death sentence is illustrated in the case 

of State vs. Shukur Ali, decided in 1995, where the High Court Division confirmed the death 

sentence of a minor boy who was 14 years old when he committed the rape and murder of a 

7 year old girl, under s.6 of an earlier version of the Women and Children Repression Prevention 

Act, 1995. The Court noted that it was compelled to confirm the death sentence: 

“No alternative punishment has been provided for the offence that the condemned prisoner 

has been charged and we are left with no other discretion but to maintain the sentence if we 

27. Human Rights Committee General Comment 6, para. 7. 

28. UN Economic and Social Council, 45th plenary meeting. Resolution 15 (1996) [Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of 

those facing the death penalty]. (E/RES/1996/15). 23 July 1996. 

29. Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, UN Doc: E/CN.4/1996/4, at para. 556. 

30. UN Human Rights Committee General Comment 6 on the right to life (art. 6, par. 6), 30/04/1982. 


elieve that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. This 

is a case, which may be taken as ‘hard cases make bad laws”. 31 

The Court proceeded to note that the age of the convicted person, who was only 16 at the time 

of the trial, would have meant that his sentence would have been commuted to life imprisonment 

had he been charged under the Penal Code which provides alternatives to the death 

sentence. 

On 16 May 2010, the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh declared 

unconstitutional such a provision providing for a mandatory death sentence. 32 The Court ruled 

that, regardless of the nature of the offence, legislation may not require that the death penalty 

is the only punishment available. This would impermissibly constrain the judiciary’s discretion 

under the constitution to consider the individual circumstances of each case, including 

the credibility of evidence and witnesses. 

FIDH and Odhikar welcome this landmark ruling, which contributes to restricting the scope 

of the death penalty in the domestic legal system, as prescribed by international human rights 

standards. As a consequence, the legislator should amend all the laws establishing mandatory 

death sentences in order to provide for an alternative prison sentence when there are extenuating 

circumstances. However, if it fails to do so, it remains to be seen how the courts of law of 

Bangladesh will give effect to this ruling in practice. 

Available statistics on the death penalty 

Executions are not publicly reported in Bangladesh, unless it is related to a ‘sensational’ or 

‘political’ case. For example, the February 2010 hanging of 5 persons accused and tried for 

the murder of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was widely reported; the same holds true of the 2007 

hanging of members of the JMB who were accused in the 2005 bomb attacks on two judges 

at Jhalakathi. 

No official statistics are available concerning the number of death sentences handed down, 

or the number of executions carried out. The FIDH/Odhikar mission was not able to obtain 

statistics regarding the number of condemnations and executions in Bangladesh from the 

officials met. 

According to a prison official interviewed, there are about 75,000 prisoners all over Bangladesh 

and 40-45 percent of them are convicted prisoners. In one district jail outside Dhaka, out of 

the 2,300-2,400 estimated total prison inmates, 90 prisoners are on death row. 33 

31. Case name State vs Sukur Ali [9 (2004) BLC (HCD) 238]. 

32. Writ Petition No. 8283 of 2005. BLAST vs State (Not yet reported) 

33. FIDH/Odhikar interviewed the IG Prisons on 07/04/2010 


The following table includes the number of death sentences and executions reported in Amnesty 

International’s annual reports for the past five years, as well as the numbers reported by Hands 

Off Cain. 

Number of Executions, Bangladesh, 2005-2010 34 

Year Executions Convictions 

AI* HOC** AI HOC 

2005 7 5 120 218 

2006 - 4 - 197 

2007 6 6 93 94 

2008 5 4 185 175 

2009 5 3 65 86 

2010 - 5 - 29 

*AI = Amnesty International; ** HOC = Hands Off Cain. 

- = no statistics available. 

The scarcity of information and its contradictory nature according to the source illustrate the 

lack of transparency of the government of Bangladesh concerning the use of the death penalty 

in the country. FIDH considers that the authorities of Bangladesh should guarantee transparency 

of data regarding the number of prisoners detained and those on death row. Bangladesh 

must also report the number of death sentences pronounced and executed every year, differentiated 

by gender, age, charges, etc. in order to allow for an informed public debate on the 

issue. These statistics must be made public in order to allow both international and domestic 

scrutiny of compliance with international law. 

34. Amnesty International annual reports, searchable at www.amnesty.org/en/library and Hands Off Cain statistics on Bangladesh, 

searchable at www.handsoffcain.info/. Accessed 7 September 2010. 


IV. Administration 

of Criminal Justice 

Police custody and arrest 

There are two kinds of offences in Bangladesh criminal law: non-cognizable and cognizable. 

Cognizable offences, as enumerated in Section 4(f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 

(Cr.P.C.), are those in which a police officer may arrest without a warrant and include crimes 

such as murder, robbery, theft, rape, rioting and assault. Non-cognizable offences, which 

include bribery and sedition, require a police officer to first obtain a warrant before making an 

arrest. Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) enumerates nine grounds 

in which a police officer may arrest without a warrant. 

As stated by many human rights activists and lawyers met by the FIDH/Odhikar delegation 

in Bangladesh, police very often abuse this power of unwarranted arrest under Section 54. 

Several of the nine circumstances enumerated in Section 54 of the Cr.P.C. are drafted with 

such nebulous wording that they facilitate this abuse of power. The Supreme Court itself has 

called for a revision of the code, especially Section 54(a), which allows unwarranted arrest 

upon “reasonable suspicion,” “reasonable complaint,” or “credible information” against “any 

person who has been concerned in any cognizable offence.” This section is a virtual carte 

blanche for the police to abuse their power of arrest without a warrant due to the nebulous 

phrases “concerned in any cognizable offence” and “reasonable suspicion.” 

As in other common law countries, statutory “reasonable suspicion” wording has been 

interpreted by the High Court Division of the Bangladesh Supreme Court into an articulable 

standard, that the arresting officer had “actual knowledge of underlying facts that lead to the 

suspicion.” 35 Unfortunately, however, this standard has not been enforced or applied by local 

courts or authorities, which has rendered the Supreme Court’s power of statutory interpretation 

impotent. The rules of the Cr.P.C. dealing with the investigation and arrest by police therefore 

facilitate the misuse of the power of arrest without a warrant. 

In Bangladesh, every criminal action commences with a First Information Report (FIR), lodged 

by the victim, relatives, or a witness. The FIR is a written or oral complaint to the investigating 

officer who must lodge the complaint in writing in the police records per Section 154 of 

the Cr.P.C. In a case of a cognizable offence, any officer of a police station may, without the 

order of a Magistrate, investigate the matter. According to Mr. Arafat Amin, Advocate to the 

Supreme Court of Bangladesh 36 , as well as several FIDH interlocutors, when a FIR is lodged 

in the police station, describing a cognizable offence, the common practice is that the police 

immediately seek out and arrest the persons named in the FIR, regardless of the suspects’ 

involvement in the crime. Following the arrest, the suspect must be produced in front of a 

magistrate within 24 hours, per section 61 of the Cr.P.C. 

35. BLAST and others v. Bangladesh, 55 (2003) DLR (HCD) 363., accessible at www.blast.org.bd/index.phpoption=com_content&vi 

ew=article&id=214&Itemid=105. 

36. Criminal Responsibility for Torture: An Urgent Human Safeguard in Bangladesh, in Criminal Responsibility for Torture. A South Asian 

Perspective, Odhikar, Research Report 2004, p. 19 [11-25]. 


Several human rights activists and lawyers have told the FIDH that naming a person in a FIR is 

often a way for people to strike back at their enemies or perpetuate neighbourly squabbles. This 

practice of false, vengeful reporting is particularly common in acid throwing cases and other 

cases falling under the laws protecting women and children, FIDH has been told. The nature 

of the FIR and their accompanying improper police practices allow citizens to “manipulate” 

the justice system and to involve it in private conflicts. 

The newly elected President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, for example., stressed 

that “the investigation is not sufficient in criminal matters”, and that there are many cases 

with fabricated evidences. It also appears that the investigating officers are understaffed, and 

not properly trained in the field of criminal investigation. Several interlocutors of the mission 

also regretted the political influence within the police. 

After the FIR has been submitted and an arrest is made, according to Article 33 (2) of the 

Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Every person who is arrested and detained 

in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four 

hours of such arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to 

the court of the magistrate, and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said 

period without the authority of a magistrate. Section 61 of the Cr.P.C. requires that the defendant 

is brought in front of a magistrate within 24 hours of incarceration in order to determine 

whether further detention is necessary. Under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C., however, magistrates 

can allow remand the case for a period not exceeding 15 days at the request of the officer. 

This infamous remand process has widely been denounced as another vehicle for the abuse of 

police power. In order to ask for further detention in police custody, police must demonstrate 

that there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information upon which the arrest is 

based is well-founded. However, as stated inter alia by Prof. Shahdeen Malik, “it is common 

knowledge that Magistrates routinely allow this request for remand“. 37 

The remand period is critical because it opens the door to severe human rights violations. 

Ill-treatment, torture and extra-judicial killings in custody are commonplace. Much of this 

torture and abuse takes place because police hope to extract bail money from the accused 

during the detention period. This issue was addressed in the BLAST (Bangladesh Legal Aid 

and Services Trust, one of the largest legal services NGOs in the country) judgement 38 of 

2003, in which the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh called for the 

strict adherence to Constitutional guarantees of due process and condemned the systematic 

police practices of torture and extortion. 

The Court in BLAST attempted to narrow the ambiguity of the terms “reasonable suspicion” 

and “concerned in any cognizable offence” as requirements for arrest. The Court required the 

officer to record his suspicion and personal knowledge of facts implicating the accused of 

criminal involvement. In order to curb excessive force, the police officer must also record the 

existence and reason for any marks of injury on the person arrested, and take the person to 

the nearest hospital or government doctor for treatment. In order to comport with due process, 

if the person is not arrested from his residence or place of business, the police officer shall 

inform the nearest relation of the person over phone or through a messenger within one hour 

37. Shahdeen Malik, “Arrest and Remand: Judicial Interpretation and Police Practice“, Bangladesh Journal of Law, Special Issue, p. 277. 

38. BLAST and others, 55 (2003) DLR (HCD) 363. 


of bringing him to the police station. The police officer must also allow the person arrested to 

consult a lawyer of his choice if he so desires or to meet any of his nearest relations. 

As for the remand process, the court in the BLAST case condemned the police practice of 

trying to “extort information or confession from the person arrested by physical or mental 

torture” as violating Article 35 of the Constitution’s right to life and right to be free from selfincrimination. 

39 Magistrates must also take all three subsections of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. 

on remand into consideration when deciding if remand is proper, which include whether the 

investigation requires more than 24 hours, if there are grounds for believing that the accusation 

or complaint is well founded, and if the officer has submitted his “diary,” which must include 

the time and place of the occurrence and the articulated reasons for the arrest. 

While the BLAST judgement is a very positive step towards a more effective right to liberty 

and a police custody without ill-treatment, torture and death custody, it is not sufficient to 

reform the law enforcement agencies and foster a culture of respect for human rights amongst 

their members. 

Indeed, according to Odhikar figures, 68 persons have been tortured in 2009 by members of 

law enforcing agencies, and the BLAST decision itself cites the death of 38 people in custody. 40 

The case of Mr. Mahmudur Rahman, the Acting Editor of the daily Amar Desh, unfortunately 

illustrates the abuse of power by the police on remand. Mr. Rahman, with whom the FIDH 

mission met during its stay in Bangladesh, was arrested by the police on 2 June 2010, after 

the daily’s publisher filed a fraud case against him allegedly at the instigation of the National 

Security Intelligence (NSI). When he was produced before a court at the end of his remand, 

Mr. Mahmudur Rahman alleged he has been tortured in detention. 41 Subsequently, Mr. Rahman 

has been charged with sedition for allegedly meeting with people attempting to overthrow the 

government in 2006, which allows for indefinite remand. Writers and reporters, detained for 

sedition, report that mistreatment, malnutrition and torture are common. 42 He has also been 

charged under section 6 (1) of Anti Terrorism Act 2009. 

Every month, the Bangladeshi newspapers report cases of extra-judicial killings and custodial 

deaths in Dhaka. End of June 2010, three persons – Mizanur Rahman, Mujibur Rahman and 

Babul Kazi – died while in police custody. In the case of Mizanur Rahman, police allegedly 

shot and killed him upon failure to produce money that police had demanded from him. 43 It is 

clear, therefore, that torture and custodial deaths are facilitated not only by the provisions of 

the Cr.P.C. but also by the widespread corruption in the ranks of law enforcing agencies. 

After the three custodial deaths mentioned above, the High Court asked the Dhaka Metropolitan 

Police Commissioner to submit inquest reports on these cases and to turn in a report by the 

end of July on measures to prevent lock-up deaths. The High Court also asked the Government 

to explain, within two weeks, why it does not take punitive action against the police officers 

39. Art 35(4) of the Constitution of Bangladesh: “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”. 

40. Odhikar, Human Rights Report 2009, p. 17. 

41. See “Mahumudur alleges torture in remand”, bdnews24.com, 12 June 2010, available at www.bdnews24.com/details.phpid 

=164100&cid=2. 

42. “Detained editor Mahmudur Rahman now facing sedition charge”, IFEX, 10 June 2010, available at www.ifex.org/bangladesh/ 

2010/06/10/rahman_sedition_charge. 

43. See Odhikar Human Rights Monitoring Report, 1st August 2010, p. 2 and “Cops slammed for custodial deaths“, The Daily Star, 

6 July 2010, available on www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.phpnid=145551 


esponsible for the custodial deaths. When this report was not submitted, the police commissioner 

Md Muniruzzaman was charged with contempt of court, but was subsequently cleared of 

the contempt charges after offering an “unqualified apology” and suspending the investigating 

officer suspected of the custodial deaths. 44 

The trial phase and violations of due process 

Bail 

The important procedural safeguard of bail is denied for many offences which could lead to the 

death penalty. Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that an accused shall 

not be released on bail if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of 

an offence punishable with death. The special laws for the protection of women and children 

provide that all offences under those Acts are non-bailable, which means that bail is per se 

unavailable unless, at the judge’s discretion, the court decides to grant bail. 45 

As discussed further below, criminal trials in Bangladesh regularly last for months or years. 

As a result, the presumption against bail for offences which involve the death penalty can 

result in a de facto pre-trial conviction of the accused who may spend months or years in jail 

before ultimately being acquitted at trial. 

Filing of false cases 

Perhaps because of the presumption against bail for these serious offences, laws which specify 

crimes punishable by death penalty appear to be regularly abused by the filing of false cases. 

Both government and academics have recognised that the Women and Children Repression 

Prevention Act of 2000 is often misused by falsely implicating the relatives of the husband. 46 

Such cases may be filed out of a desire to take revenge for a personal grievance or for property 

gain. The Bangladesh Law Commission, established by Parliament in order to revise the civil 

and criminal codes, has recommended amending the law so that relatives of the husband cannot 

be arrested if there is no prima facie case against them. In our view, this recommendation has 

merit in that an articulable reasonable suspicion must always exist for a proper arrest to occur 

under international and Bangladeshi guarantees of the right fair trial and to due process. 

All relatives of persons condemned to death stressed the following elements: when someone is 

named in a FIR, s/he is automatically prosecuted. The relatives generally believe that revenge 

is often behind those FIR. They also denounce that political connections play an important 

role at local level in criminal cases: people with relevant connections in political parties at 

local level can avoid conviction. Those who are able to bribe can also benefit from a more 

favourable outcome. 

Media pressure can also introduce an element of arbitrariness into Bangladesh’s sentencing 

regime, in violation of international law: judges sometimes feel obliged to condemn to death 

due to such pressure, as reported by several persons interviewed by the mission, including 

44. “Enough with custodial deaths, says HC”, bdnews24, 1 June 2010, available at www.bdnews24.com/details.phpid= 

163013&cid=2. 

45. See section 19 of the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act of 2000 and section 15 of the Acid Crime Control Act 2002. 

46. Report of the Law Commission on amendment of certain sections of the Nari O Shishu Nirjaton Daman Ain 2000, SI No 77; Sharmin 

Jahan Tania, ‘Special Criminal Legislation for Violence Against Women and Children – A Critical Examination’ (2007) Bangladesh Journal 

of Law 199. 


a high-level official in the judiciary. The case of Mizan’s murder in Dhaka illustrates this 

situation. 

Muhamad Kuddus Gazi, 55, a housing estate contractor, was convicted to death for participating 

in the murder of a man called Mizan. The murder of Mizan occurred in Dhaka in 2003. According 

to Kuddus’s lawyer, 4 persons were accused of being involved in the murder of Mizan: the wife 

of Mizan, her “lover”, a man called Mozam who is allegedly a rental killer and Kuddus himself. 

The 4 accused have been sentenced to death. However, Kuddus is the only one in custody. 

Although it is not a bailable offence, the wife of the victim and her lover have been granted bail. 

Mozam, the “rental killer” has never been arrested. Kuddus’s lawyer believes that the name of 

Kuddus appeared in the charge sheet because of local enmities. According to Kuddus family, 

Kuddus is a victim of manipulation. They think that the problems of Kuddus started when he 

filed a FIR when his cousin Abdul Halim was killed. Abdul Halim was a local member of the 

political party BNP. Those accused of being involved is his murder are also local members of 

the BNP. Another local member of BNP called Islam had been killed in 2001. Islam belonged 

to a group of BNP supporters which was a rival group to the one Abdul Halim belonged to. 

Kuddus has been accused of the murder of Islam. But Kuddus has been granted bail after 

11 months in custody. Islam’s case was still pending when we the FIDH/Odhikar mission met 

with the family of Kuddus. 

According to the family, the name of Kuddus does not appear in the FIR filed in the case of 

Mizan. However, he has reportedly been arrested at his home, in a small village close to Jessore 

at the end of 2004 by the RAB. According to Kuddus lawyer, the conviction of Kuddus relies 

on what the son of the victim (Mizan’s son) told at the hearings. According to the lawyer, 

Mizan’ son told the court that he heard from somebody that Kuddus was the killer. 

Courts and the Judiciary 

Bangladesh operates under a judicial system that was bequeathed to it from the British common 

law tradition. The highest appeals court in the country is the Supreme Court, which is divided 

into the High Court and the Appellate Division. The High Court hears appeals from subordinate 

courts and issues orders and directives as writs to enforce fundamental rights and to grant 

other reliefs available under the writ jurisdiction. The Appellate Division hears appeals from 

the High Court division and other bodies and supervises the subordinate courts and tribunals, 

an important function considering the judicial legacy of dependence on the executive branch 

(see below, section on the integrity of the Judiciary). 

The first court of appeals is the District Court, headed by what is formally known as a Sessions 

Judge, which hears all crimes punishable by more than 5 years and appeals from the Magistrates. 

The courts of first instance are 1st Magistrate courts, headed by Assistant Session judges, and 

they hear all criminal matters with crimes punishable up to 5 years. 47 There are also special 

courts established under particular criminal statutory schemes, called tribunals, such as the 

Special Tribunal established by the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act of 1995 

and the Acid Crime Tribunal established by the Acid Crime Control Act 2002. 

47. “From Rule of Law to Legal Empowerment of the Poor in Bangladesh” United Nations Development Programme, Ferdous Jahan, 

available at www.undp.org/legalempowerment/reports/National%20Consultation%20Reports/Country%20Files/4_Bangladesh/4_3_ 

Access_to_Justice.pdf. 


Delay plagues the administration of justice in Bangladesh at each level of the judiciary, with 

a backlog of 43,000 criminal cases in Dhaka alone. The government’s Ministry of Law estimated 

that approximately 1,200 prisoners had made no court appearance in six months, often 

surpassing the maximum sentence possible had they been found guilty. 48 Such backlog seems 

to be chronic in all 64 district courts that serve the country of 150 million population. Such 

lengthy delay compounds concerns about denial of bail to accused and raises serious questions 

about the presumption of innocence in Bangladesh’s criminal justice system. 

In order to address this, a number of Speedy Tribunals have been established under the Law and 

Order Infringement (Speedy Trial) Bill of 2010, which has been extended several times and is 

now set to expire in June 2014. 49 Under this Act, special tribunals get assigned certain cases such 

as murders, vandalism, and extortion, and must dispose of them within 90 days with a possible 

extension of 30 days in special circumstances. While welcoming the government’s attempts 

to address delays in criminal trials that leave accused people in remand for years awaiting a 

verdict, FIDH is concerned that these Speedy Tribunals sacrifice other vital safeguards such as 

rules of evidence and other rights of the accused, which also affect the right to equal protection 

under the law. Finally, the Speedy Trial courts provide an outlet for government interference 

with the judiciary because the assignment to these special courts is often politically motivated. 

For example, 86 of the Bangladesh Rifles mutineers who took part in the bloody 2009 mutiny 

are subject to high-profile trials under the Act (see below section on the BDR case). 50 

Integrity of the Judiciary 

FIDH was informed of documented cases where courts of first instance have not taken a 

critical or independent approach to charges based on false claims which have been filed by 

individuals for personal or financial gain. For instance, the High Court Division, in 2003, 

overturned a conviction on the basis that the prosecution case was entirely concocted. 51 The 

death sentence had been ordered by the Special Tribunal which adjudicates the legislation on 

the suppression of violence against women, and the Tribunal had convicted the accused (who 

were the mother-in-law and husband of the victim) and sentenced them to death solely on the 

basis of a newspaper report. 

The lack of fair trial and presumption of innocence principles result from a combination of 

systemic weaknesses within the criminal justice system, including corruption in the lower 

levels of the judiciary and the police force, lack of police investigation to provide forensic 

evidence to counter claims by a self-proclaimed “eye-witness” and close ties between the 

Magistracy and police force. It is also a result of the weak institutional separation between 

the lower courts and the executive government of Bangladesh. 

Lower levels of the judiciary, including Sessions Judges and special tribunal judges who 

can impose the death penalty, have traditionally sat within the administrative arm of government, 

reporting directly to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Law, Justice and 

Parliamentary Affairs. Citing the constitutional requirement for separation of powers between 

48. US Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, “Bangladesh” Section 1(d), available at www.state.gov/g/ 

drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78869.htm. 

49. “Speedy trial act extended” bdnews24, 24 June 2010, available at www.bdnews24.com/details.phpid=165596&cid=3. 

50. “BDR mutiny trial in Bangladesh begins”, The Hindu, 23 February 2010, available at www.thehindu.com/news/international/article 

111964.ece. 

51. The State vs. Osena Begum @ Babuler Ma and another (2003) 23 BLD (HCD) p. 336. 


the judiciary and the executive 52 , in 1999, the Supreme Court directed the government to 

de-link the lower judiciary from the direct control of the government and place it under the 

supervision and management of the Supreme Court to ensure its independence. However, the 

formal separation of the lower courts from the executive of the Bangladesh government did 

not take place until 2007. Many of the judicial officers currently sitting on those courts and 

tribunals have remained unchanged since that time. 

The culture of Magistracy, therefore, remains highly vulnerable to government influence through 

judicial appointments and promotions which remain overseen by the Ministry of Law. Questions 

have been raised about whether political nepotism has driven recent appointments to the courts, 

including the High Court Division, since two proposed appointees named in April 2010 had been 

facing criminal charges, including for murder and arson, which were withdrawn just before these 

appointments were announced. 53 After media scrutiny of this event, the Chief Justice refrained 

from administering the oath to these nominees, although no guarantee has been forthcoming 

from the Bangladesh Courts that no similar appointments will be made in the future. 

According to the Transparency International Bangladesh National Household Survey 2007, 

approximately half of the people in rural areas who have dealings with the lower courts experience 

corruption. In urban areas, incidences of bribery were of a slightly lower frequency 

(37.7%). 54 Some bribes are solicited by clerks responsible for registering, filing and processing 

cases, whereas other bribes are solicited by lawyers directly from the defendants and plaintiffs 

and are then passed on to judges or magistrates. The bribes are paid in order to gain information 

or favours from magistrates in criminal courts. According to this report, 41.7% of households 

interacting with the judiciary had to pay bribes, the average of which was BDT 4,825 (about 

50 euros). In 45.2% of the cases interacting with the lower courts the plaintiff had to pay a 

bribe, the average of which was BDT 5,124. In 47.6% of cases involving the middle courts, 

the plaintiff had to pay a bribe, the average of which is BDT 5,516. Urban households paid 

an average amount of BDT 6,104, whereas rural households paid an average amount of BDT 

3,966. 55 Corruption affects the independence of the judiciary to act without undue influence 

from powerful interests. And it affects its accountability, such as the effectiveness of rules 

and oversight 

The lower judiciary is subject to executive influence and suffers from corruption. 56 However, 

the Supreme Court is not spared either. Promotions and appointments based on political favourism 

are quite common here too. The Anti-Corruption Commission of Bangladesh lodged a 

corruption charge against Justice Fazlul Haque on April 13, 2009. He was accused of illegally 

amassing huge wealth and concealing information about his assets. The ACC complaint states 

that Haque earned huge amounts of money through corruption as a government adviser, a judge 

of the Supreme Court, and the head of various probe commissions after his retirement from the 

52. Article 22 of Bangladesh’s Constitution mandates that ‘the state shall ensure the separation of the judiciary from the executive 

organs of the state’. 

53. Asia Human Rights Commission, ‘ASIA: Access to Justice and Fair Trials a Distant Dream in Nepal, India and Bangladesh’ a written 

statement to th e Human Rights Council, 14th sess, Agenda Item 3, Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the independence 

of judges and lawyers, at www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2010statements/2580/. 

54. Transparency International Bangladesh. National 2007 Household Survey on Corruption in Bangladesh. Substantive Summary. Dhaka, 

18 June 2008. See also www.ti-bangladesh.org/research/HHsurvey07 

55. Ibid. P xiii. 

56. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/bangladesh.htm and www.idhrb.org/ 


judicial service. The ACC has also commenced an investigation about the wealth accumulated 

by a former Judge of the Appellate Division, Justice Mohammad Zainul Abedin. 57 

The International Crimes Tribunal 

Throughout the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971, there were widespread violations of 

human rights, many of which were allegedly perpetrated by the Pakistan Army. While the 

newly independent Bangladesh enacted legislation to try these war crimes, The International 

Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973, pressure from the United States, India and the Soviet Union after 

the war influenced the government to offer the perpetrators amnesty. 

In March 2010, Bangladesh officially lifted this amnesty and officials announced the establishment 

of the International Crimes Tribunal to try those accused of committing war crimes during 

the 1971 war, fulfilling a campaign promise of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Established 

under the amended International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973, the tribunal includes three high 

court judges and six investigators. In July 2010, the International Crimes Tribunal issued its 

first charges of genocide, murder and torture against four senior leaders of the political party 

Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), accused of committing war crimes in 1971. 58 

While welcoming Bangladesh’s commitment to address impunity for violations carried out in 

1971 in the context of the independence war, FIDH has concerns about the trial processes under 

the Act. The Tribunal dispenses with “technical rules of evidence”, 59 omits to mention the burden 

of proof for conviction, 60 and provides for the application of the death penalty. Bangladesh must 

redress these deficiencies in the operation of the Tribunal so that its planned trials for atrocities 

and crimes committed in the 1971 war of independence from Pakistan will bring meaningful 

and adequate justice to victims. The International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over even the 

most heinous crimes yet maintains fair standards of due process and does not impose the capital 

punishment. FIDH and Odhikar consider that the International Crimes Tribunal should institute 

similar safeguards to ensure a fair justice system, and should not impose the death penalty. 

Appeals and Clemency 

Neither the Magistrates Courts nor the Courts of Assistant Sessions Judge may pass a final 

sentence of death. 61 This may be done only by the High Court Division, the Courts of the 

Sessions Judge or the Additional Sessions Judge. 62 Any death sentence passed by the Sessions 

Judge cannot be executed until examined and confirmed by the High Court Division. 63 On 

appeal, the death sentence can be suspended, remanded to a lower court, or commuted. 64 

There is also the opportunity for an appeal for clemency directly to the President. 65 This request 

must be submitted in writing within seven days of the High Court Divisions confirmation of the 

57. The Daily Prothom Alo, 21/07/2010. See also: www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2010-07-21/news/80370 

58. JI head Motiur Rahman Nizami, Secretary General Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid and senior assistant secretaries general Muhammad 

Qamaruzzaman and Abdul Quader Mollah. A fifth JI leader, Delwar Hossain Saidee, is also expected to be charged. 

59. Section 19(1). 

60. Section 20. 

61. Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, sections 29C, 33A, 31(3) and (4). 

62. Code of Criminal Procedure1898, sections 31(1) and (2). 

63. Code of Criminal Procedure1898, sections 31(2) and 374. 

64. Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, sections 29C, 33A, 31(3) and (4). 

65. Code of Criminal Procedure1898, section 402A. 


death sentence. 66 The presidential power to pardon death row convicts has been exercised in 

Bangladesh, as recently as September 2010 when clemency was granted to twenty Awami League 

activists who had been convicted for murdering a local leader of the opposition BNP in 2005. 67 

While FIDH welcomes the decision to withhold the death penalty in this case, it is concerned 

that this creates a perception that the Presidential pardon is politically motivated. 68 

As mentioned earlier, cases are expedited that have a high political profile. The October 2006 

conviction of seven members of the Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) for the November 

2005 bomb attack of two judges at Jhalakathi, was followed by their execution in the late hours 

of 29 March of 2007. The High Court’s consideration of these applications for review was 

done with extreme haste and were followed quickly with the execution of the sentence. The 

difference between the speed of such politically expedient trials and all other cases is stark 

and has serious implications for the rule of law and equality of all citizens under the law. 

Trial of the killing of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family members 

In August 1975, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (the first President of newly Independent Bangladesh), 

was assassinated by a group of junior army officers who had invaded his residence. The military 

refused to court-martial the military officials who had masterminded and participated in the coup. 

No case was registered with the police, for 21 years. Indeed, the new government of President 

Khondker Mushtaq Ahmed ensured that the conspirators could not be tried before a court in 

relation to the killing by passing the Indemnity Act. Thus, no charges were laid in connection 

with the coup until 1996 when the Awami League, led by Mujib’s daughter, Sheikh Hasina, won 

the national election, and repealed the Act. 

Thus, in 1996, a number of alleged coup leaders were arrested and the Bangabandhu murder 

trial commenced. With an exceptional speed, the trial concluded on November 8, 1998 with the 

court ordering death sentences for 15 out of 20 accused of the assassination. Apparently due to 

a shortage of judges in the appellate division of the Supreme Court, appeals from a number of 

these sentences were pending a hearing since August 2001. The appellate division of the Supreme 

Court gave its verdict denying these appeals, and upholding the death sentences, on November 

19, 2009, after a five-member special bench spent 29 days hearing the appeal petitions. On 27 

January 2010, the Supreme Court delivered judgement in its final review of the case, upholding 

the death sentences. Bazlul Huda, AKM Mohiuddin, Syed Faruk Rahman, Muhiuddin Ahmed 

and Sultan Shahriar Rashid Khan were executed in Dhaka Central Jail in the early hours of 28 

January 2010, 13 hours after the final judicial review of their sentences. 

The haste with which the executions were carried out raises serious questions about the 

timing and procedures for these executions. In particular, these executions appeared to violate 

a Bangladeshi law allowing prisoners sentenced to death a period of seven days from the 

date that all judicial remedies have been exhausted in order to petition for mercy from the 

66. Bengal Jail Code amended 1989, cl 991. 

67. Mozammel H Khan, ‘Presidential Clemency: Beyond Question’ The Daily Star, 25 September 2010. 

68. President Zillur Rahman granted presidential pardon to 20 death row inmates of the Jubo Dal leader Sabbir Ahmed Gama killing 

case. Only one condemned in this case was not pardoned and that person is on the run. Gama was the nephew of former BNP deputy 

minister Ruhul Quddus Talukdar Dulu and he was gunned down in 2004 in Natore. On 6 September 2010, the Home Ministry sent an 

official order to jail authorities concerned for their immediate release. 


President. 69 The President had rejected petitions for clemency from three of the five executed 

men before the Supreme Court’s final review. A fourth man’s mercy petition was considered 

after the Supreme Court’s judgement on 27 January and was dismissed within hours of receipt 

by the President. A further six men sentenced to death in absentia in the same case are living 

outside Bangladesh, and the government is currently seeking their extradition. The way those 

executions were carried out raises serious questions about the timing and the procedures of 

conducting executions in Bangladesh. 

The BDR case 

Elements in the Bangladesh Rifles, the country’s border guard unit, staged a rebellion at BDR 

headquarters in Dhaka, the capital, on February 25 and 26, 2009. In the rebellion, 74 people 

were killed, including 57 army commanding officers in the army. As of September 2009 about 

3,700 border guards were detained as a result of the indiscriminate arrests that followed the 

rebellion. In July 2010, the Criminal Investigation Department indicted 824 people on charges 

of murder, arson, looting, hiding of bodies and sedition, of which 801 are border guards and 

the others civilians. Many of these low-ranking officers, known as ‘jawans’, have been tried 

in civilian courts and in special tribunals created under the BDR ordinance. 

The government has committed to try the massacre suspects under the fast track ‘Speedy Trial 

Tribunal’ under the Civil Penal Code which prescribes capital punishment for offences like 

murder. Those who are charged with mutiny rather than murder are to be tried under the military 

court system. An estimated 3,500 soldiers, who allegedly joined the mutiny as it spread 

to other border posts across the country, are to be tried in six special military courts on lesser 

charges. Tthese ‘special courts’ are to be headed by the BDR Director General. Many of the 

defendants in these special military courts do not have access to lawyers. FIDH reaffirms that 

the jurisdiction of military courts, if used at all, should be restricted to offences of a strictly 

military nature, that were committed by military personnel, and must provide full guarantees 

of a fair trial. FIDH has doubts about the transparency of these trials, in light of the numbers 

of low-ranking officers whom have been targeted. The opposition BNP has questioned the 

neutrality of the investigation, arguing that BNP leader Nasiruddin Ahmed Pintu has been 

charged without evidence against him. 

Further, reports suggest that hundreds of BDR personnel had suffered torture in detention for 

possible involvement in the mutiny. Scores have died in custody since February 2009, for which 

the government blames both suicide and natural causes. Nearly all mutineers were denied the 

opportunity to seek the assistance of a lawyer over the course of weeks or months. 70 

Prison Conditions 

The FIDH/Odhikar team did not have the opportunity to visit prisons, detention centres or 

places where persons deprived of their liberty are kept. Neither was the team able to access 

prisoners and interview them about prison life and conditions. This is because of the standing 

policy of the government prohibiting NGOs, local and international, from having access to 

places of detention and prisoners. 

69. Bengal Jail Code amended 1989, cl 991. 

70. Odhikar annual reports 2009. See also. www.odhikar.org/documents/2009/English_report/HRR_2009.pdf 


In an article written by Sheikh Hafizur Rahman Karzon (2007) 71 , a Lecturer at the Department 

of Law, Dhaka University, there were 81 jails throughout Bangladesh as of 2004, 9 of which 

are central jails, 56 District jails, and 16 thana, or sub-district, jails. 72 Overcrowding in prisons 

and jails seems to be widespread. Prison population is about three times above capacity, 

resulting in inhumane living conditions. In 2001, it was estimated that the maximum number 

of prisoners which Bangladesh prisons can accommodate was 24,152 inmates. 73 The present 

total population of prisoners in Bangladesh was estimated by prison officials to be 75,000 – 

three times more than the reported capacity. 

According to a prison official interviewed by FIDH/Odhikar, and confirmed by families of 

prisoners on death row, death row inmates are kept in separate cells that house 3-5 prisoners 

per cell of 5 per 5 feet. Female prisoners on death row are also kept in separate cells measuring 

10 feet by 10 feet in size. For male prisoners not on death row, each cell is around 120 – 130 

square feet in size with no window and one door providing ventilation in the area and houses 

50 to 60 inmates. It has a toilet separated by a wall from the sleeping area. The bathing area 

is outside the cell. 74 Death row prisoners do not have activities inside the jail, contrary to 

other inmates. 

According to Mr. Karzon, prison authorities in Bangladesh have failed to satisfy the Standard 

Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners set by the United Nations. Food is generally 

insufficient and of low quality. The water supply is inadequate and has to be secured from a 

container located in the bathing area of prisoners outside their cells. 75 

Besides poor prison conditions that make the maintenance of proper health and hygienic practices 

nearly impossible for prisoners, hospital facilities and services inside prisons are also 

reportedly inadequate. 76 In fact, there have been cases of seriously ill prisoners who have died 

inside the prisons because of the failure of prison authorities to provide timely and appropriate 

medical treatment or care. According to the rights organisation ASK, in 2010, 17 prisoners 

under trial and 3 convicted prisoners died in jail custody. 77 According to the same source, in 

2009, 28 prisoners under trial died in jail, as well as 30 convicted prisoners. 

According to relatives of death row inmates, prisoners are not allowed to receive food from 

relatives except dry items like biscuits. However, death row inmates can buy food from the 

prison canteen if they can afford it financially. 78 

Family members and relatives can visit death row inmates in Jessore Central Jail, once a month 

for 20 to 30 minutes. In some prisons, the frequency of visits has increased to twice a month 

or once every 15 days. Lawyers are allowed to meet with their clients during visiting days. 

There is a designated visitors’ area where all prisoners meet their visitors including lawyers. 

Usually the meetings take place in a common place altogether. 

71. Karzon, SHR. “Treatment of prisoners: How modern are our laws Human Rights Monitor. September 12, 2004. www.thedailystar. 

net/law/2004/09/02/index.htm (Accessed: 11 August 2010). 

72. Ibid. 

73. Ibid. 

74. Interview with a prison official, 4 April 2010. 

75. Interview with family members of death row inmates. 4 April 2010 

76. Interview with family members of death row prisoners. 4 April 2010 

77. See www.askbd.org/web/page_id=672 (consulted on September 28, 2010). 

78. Interview with family members of death row inmates. 4 April 2010. 


Executions 

All executions in Bangladesh are, by law, required to be done by hanging. 79 All convicted 

prisoners facing the death sentence are, by law, to be detained on ‘death row’, in separation 

from other prisoners. 80 

While government data on the numbers of hangings in Bangladesh are not available, sources 

indicate that, since the liberation of Bangladesh in 1975 and as at January 2008, 247 individuals 

had been hanged. 81 At least 1500 convicted criminals now face the death penalty, of which 

more than 950 convicts are in custody on death row (including 28 women), and more than 500 

have absconded. A number of recent hangings have followed two significant periods of time 

with no executions: 1989-92 and 1998-2001. 82 These tentative steps toward abolition were 

reversed when executions resumed after several years of a de facto moratorium. 

Method of execution 

FIDH was informed by lawyers, government representatives and jail administrators that it is 

customary to request a fellow prisoner in the prison, who is not facing a death sentence, to 

carry out the execution. Since executions are done by hanging, this means that a fellow prisoner 

or two prisoners are responsible for placing the person to be executed under the beam, 

place a rope around his neck and open the trap door by level so that the convicted person is 

hanged. FIDH was told that incentives were offered to prisoners to carry out the execution, 

such as a remission of sentence. 

When asked about the ethics and legality of such practice, numerous respondents explained to 

FIDH that the use of fellow prisoners was authorised by the Bengal Jail Code. However, while 

the Jail Code makes detailed reference to the ‘duty of the executioner’, 83 requires the hanging 

of the body for half an hour, 84 and specifies that the government department is responsible for 

expenses of the hanging, 85 nothing in the Code authorises the practice of offering prisoners 

reduced sentences as incentives to perform an execution. Some respondents further claimed 

that this was a colonial practice introduced by the British and has been performed in South 

Asia since independence from British rule. Regardless of the provenance of this custom, FIDH 

urges Bangladesh to dispense with it. It is readily understandable that it is difficult to find an 

official or administrator to personally carry out the execution. For this reason, among others, 

FIDH urges Bangladesh to abolish the death penalty. 

79. Section 368 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provides that when a person is sentenced to death, ‘he be hanged by the 

neck till he is dead’. 

80. The Prisons Act 1894, s 30(2); Bengal Jail Code, amended 1989, cl 980. 

81. Azad Mak, ‘Death Sentence: International Trend and Bangladesh’, The Daily Star, 26 January 2008. 

82. David T Johnson and Franklin E Zimring, ‘Taking Capital Punishment Seriously’ (2006) 1 Asian Criminology 89-95. 

83. Cl 1005 

84. Cl 1006. 

85. Cl 1009. 


IV. Terrorism 

The Special Powers Act, 1974 (SPA) was enacted under the emergency provisions of the Second 

Amendment of the Constitution, which allows Parliament to pass national security legislation. 

The SPA outlaws any activity that is “intended or likely to: prejudice the sovereignty or defence 

of Bangladesh, prejudice the maintenance of friendly relations with Bangladesh, prejudice the 

security of Bangladesh or to endanger public safety or the maintenance of public order, create 

or incite feelings of enmity or hatred between different communities, classes or sections of 

people, interfere with or encourage or incite interference with the administration of law or the 

maintenance of law and order, prejudice the maintenance of supplies and services essential to 

the community, cause fear or alarm to the public or to any section of the public, prejudice the 

economic or financial interests of the State.” 

Because they are overly expansive, these definitions of “prejudicial acts” are not compatible 

with Article 15 of the ICCPR which bans retroactive punishment for actions that were not 

clearly defined before the commission of the act. Moreover, Section 8 of the SPA provides 

that the arresting and detaining authority may inform the detainee of the reason for his arrest 

within 15 days of the arrest. This provision is clearly incompatible with Article 9 (2) of the 

ICCPR which states that: “Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of the arrest, 

of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him”. Even 

worse, Section 10 of the SPA provides that the Government can detain a person without trial 

for as long as 120 days. Section 10 of the SPA is in total opposition with Article 9 (3) of the 

ICCPR, which states that “anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought 

promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and 

shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release.” Thus, it is not surprising that 

the SPA is denigrated by human rights activists as “black law,” allegedly used to harass and 

detain political opponents, union representatives 86 , and media members. 

On 11 June 2008, the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance of 2008 was promulgated by the Care-Taker 

Government, an unelected military-backed interim government put into place following the 

cancelled elections and controversial anti-corruption drive of 2007. Based on the Ordinance, 

the Parliament enacted the Anti-Terrorism Act 87 (also known as ATA) on 24 February 2009. 

According to the National Report submitted by Bangladesh to the Human Rights Council 

before the Universal Periodic Review of the country, the Ordinance of 2008, and therefore 

the ATA, shows, in conjunction with other new laws, Bangladesh’s evident commitment to 

protect and promote human rights in compliance with its international obligations. 88 However, 

human rights defenders publicly criticized the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance 2008 and the ATA, 

describing it as “black law” and a legislation that will facilitate torture and other violations of 

human rights. The ATA’s compliance with Bangladesh’s international human rights commitments 

is highly questionable. 

86. See International Trade Union Confederation Annual Survey of violations of trade unions rights 2010. Available on http://survey.ituccsi.org/+-Bangladesh-+.htmllang=en. 

See also www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,BGD,,45f146f628,0.html 

87. Its full title is “An Act to prevent and effectively punish certain terrorist activities and to make provisions connected therewith”. 

88. Bangladesh National Report submitted in accordance with paragraph 15(A) of the Annex to Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1, 

A/HRC/WG.6/4/BGD/1 (19 November 2008), para. 70. 


This being said, no region of the world is exempt from the extremism and violence which has 

been defined as terrorist activity. While counter-terrorism policies should be designed to meet 

the legitimate aim of increasing the security and protection of the individual through state 

action, the measures adopted must respect human rights and the rule of law as the bedrock of 

the global fight against terrorism. 

The questionable compliance of the new anti-terrorism legislation 

with Bangladesh human rights commitments 

Vague terminology in the ATA 

The definition of terrorist activities in the ATA is too vague and is not consistent with the UN 

High-Level Panel appointed by Kofi Annan, which was mandated to define the act of terrorism 

in the absence of any existing legal standard. 89 It is not in conformity either with the elements 

of definition proposed by the UN Special Rapporteur on the protection of human rights while 

countering terrorism. 

Regarding the tricky issue of the definition of “terrorism”, the Special Rapporteur indicated 

that “The solution to this problem can be drawn from Security Council resolution 1566 (2004). 

Although the resolution did not purport to define “terrorism”, it called on all States to cooperate 

fully in the fight against terrorism and, in doing so, to prevent and punish acts that have 

the following three cumulative characteristics: 

(a) Acts, including against civilians, committed with the intention of causing death or serious 

bodily injury, or the taking of hostages; and 

(b) Irrespective of whether motivated by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, 

racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature, also committed for the purpose of provoking 

a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, 

intimidating a population, or compelling a Government or an international organization 

to do or to abstain from doing any act; and 

(c) Such acts constituting offences within the scope of and as defined in the international 

conventions and protocols relating to terrorism. 

The third criterion represents the trigger-offence approach already identified. The important 

feature of the resolution is the cumulative nature of its characterization of terrorism, requiring 

the trigger-offence to be accompanied with: the intention of causing death or serious bodily 

injury (or the taking of hostages); for the purpose of provoking terror, intimidating a population, 

or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing 

any act. This cumulative approach acts as a safety threshold to ensure that it is only conduct 

of a terrorist nature that is identified as terrorist conduct. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes 

that not all acts that are crimes under national or even international law are acts of terrorism 

or should be defined as such.” 90 

89. “Any action, in addition to actions already specific by the existing conventions on aspects of terrorism, the Geneva Conventions 

and Security Council resolution 1566 (2004) that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, 

when the purposes of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population , or to compel a Government or an international 

organization to do or abstain from doing any act.” See report by the Secretary General’s high level panel on threats, challenges and 

charges (available at www.un.org/secureworld). 

90. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/168/84/PDF/G0516884.pdfOpenElement 


Subsection 1 of Section 6 of the ATA defines terrorist activities as following: 

“If any person by creating fear amongst the public or segment of the public in order to jeopardize 

the territorial integrity, solidarity, security or sovereignty of Bangladesh, for the purpose 

of compelling the government or any other person to do or refrain from doing an act - 

(a) causes death, inflicts grievous hurt, confines or abducts any person or causes damage to 

any property of a person; or 

(b) uses or keeps any explosive, ignitable substance, firearms or any other chemical substance 

with a view to effect the purposes enumerated in clause (a): 

shall commit the offence of ‘terrorist activities’.” (emphasis added) 

Since terrorist activities are criminal offences punishable by death penalty or a minimum 

20-year imprisonment sentence, their definition must comply with the principle of legality 

of criminal law enshrined in Article 15 of the ICCPR. Article 15 embodies the requirement 

of both criminal liability and punishment being limited to clear and precise provisions in the 

law that was in place and applicable at the time the act or omission took place, except in cases 

where a later law imposes a lighter penalty. The ATA uses vague expressions such as “creating 

fear amongst the public or a segment of the public” and “solidarity of Bangladesh,” the use 

of which are not compatible with Article 15 of the ICCPR. 

Length of police custody facilitates abuse of power 

The ATA increases the risk of ill-treatment and torture because of the length of police custody 

and the time frame of investigation. 

Concerning the length of police custody, Section 26 of the ATA provides that: 

“(1) In any case when a person is arrested and detained for the purpose of conducting investigation, 

the investigating officer can apply to a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction for remanding 

the person to police custody. 

(2) The Magistrate shall have the power after considering the application under subsection 

(1)to grant remand of the accused and the term of such remand shall not extend ten days in 

its totality or continuity; provided that if the investigating officer can satisfactorily prove 

before the Magistrate that if granted remand for an extended period, additional evidence 

may be obtained, the Magistrate shall have the power to extend the period of such remand 

by not more than five days.” (emphasis added) 

FIDH is concerned by the length of police custody and recalls that, according to the Human 

Rights Committee, police custody that can be extended to last 12 days is a matter of concern 91 . 

As above documented, ill-treatment and torture occur very often during police custody in 

Bangladesh in order to extract confessions and bribes. 

The fact that the ATA states that the investigations into the offences under this Act must be 

completed within 30 days (Section 24 (1)) increases the risk of the use of ill-treatment and 

torture for extracting confession. Section 24 makes it possible for the investigating police 

officer to obtain an extension of the time for investigation, and can be subject to departmental 

91. See Concluding Observations on Algeria, CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, 12 December 2007, para. 18. 


action for delay 92 . A pressure to complete investigations of terrorist activity within a short 

time may cause hasty, shortcut investigations with little regard for due process. 

ATA crimes non-bailable 

According to Section 39 (1) of the ATA, “all offences under this Act are non-bailable”. 93 This 

goes against the normal practice of the Criminal Procedure Code and violates fundamental 

human rights of the accused persons. It is not compatible with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR 

which provides in part that “It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be 

detained in custody”. According to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and the protection 

of human rights and fundamental freedom while countering terrorism, “this [article of 

the ICCPR] properly places the burden upon the State to establish the need for the detention 

of accused person to continue. Where there are essential reasons, such as the suppression of 

evidence or the commission of further offences, bail may be refused and a person remanded 

in custody. The Special Rapporteur stated, however, that classification of an act as a terrorist 

offence in domestic law should not result in automatic denial of bail, nor in the reversal of 

onus. Each case must be assessed on its merits, with the burden upon the State for establishing 

reasons for detention.” 94 

Specially-constituted tribunals invite abuse 

FIDH notes that, in the last decades, anti-terrorism special courts have been established in 

many countries and they are very often conducive to abuse of the accused and violation of 

human rights. Section 28 (1) of the ATA states that “The Government, through Government 

Notification, shall constitute one or more Anti-terrorism Special Tribunals for the purpose of 

speedy and effective disposal of cases under this Act”. Section 28(2) provides that this Special 

Tribunal shall be composed by Sessions Judges or Additional Sessions Judge “appointed by 

the Government in consultation with the Supreme Court.” It is not clear from the wording of 

this provision whether the Supreme Court’s disapproval of the nomination of a judge is binding 

on the Government. With such lack of precision, the independence of the Special Tribunal 

is not guaranteed, therefore raising the question whether the special courts’ independence are 

guaranteed. Therefore, it is not sure that these provisions meet the condition of independence 

of the tribunal provided for by Article 14 of the ICCPR. 

According to the UN Human Rights Committee, Article 14 of the ICCPR signifies that “trials 

of civilians by (…) special courts should be exceptional, i.e. limited to cases where the State 

party can show that resorting to such trials is necessary and justified by objective and serious 

reasons, and where with regard to specific class of individuals and offences at issue the regular 

civilians courts are unable to undertake the trials”. 95 The ATA provides for one or more Antiterrorism 

Special Tribunals for the purpose of speedy and effective disposal of cases under 

92. Section 25 provides for a time extension of investigation in certain cases. 

93. Section 32, included in Chapter 7 on the Trial by a Special Tribunal for Anti-Terrorism, provides: “The Magistrate or the Judge shall 

not grant bail to the person accused under of any offense punishable under this Act, unless (a) the state party is given an opportunity of 

being heard; and (b) the judge is satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that accuses may not be guilty of offences alleged 

in the trial and he reduces the reasons of such satisfaction in writing.” 

94. See Australia: Study on Human Rights Compliance While Countering Terrorism. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion 

and the protection of human rights while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, A/HRC/4/26/Add.3 (14 December 2006), para. 34. 

95. UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32 (Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial), 

CCPR/C/GC/32, 27 August 2007, para. 22. 


this Act. FIDH considers that it remains unclear why, according to the ATA, regular civilians 

courts are unable to undertake the trials related to terrorism and that the proffered inefficiency 

has a link with the class of individuals and offences. 

Moreover, FIDH notes that Bangladesh has established special courts specifically for the purpose 

of speedy and effective disposal of cases stemming from other laws, such as the Women and 

Children Repression Prevention Act of 1995. The government has announced to implement 

“bribery-free court management” 96 in these special terrorism courts, implying therefore that 

the regular courts are considered both corrupt and inefficient. FIDH suggests consequently to 

the Bangladeshi authorities to tackle these problems directly rather than create a parallel justice 

system which stacks its own problems to the already existing ones while failing to comply with 

their international obligations. Last but not least, “speedy trials” for cases as complicated as 

so-called terrorist offences appear utterly inappropriate since such cases by definition require 

in-depth and elaborate enquiries, which cannot be “speedy”. 

Anti-terrorist surveillance legislation violates rights to privacy and fair trial 

The Bangladesh Telecommunication (Amendment) Act of 2006 was passed by Parliament in 

February 2006, which added Section 97A into the Telecommunication Act 2001, allowing the 

Government to engage in telecommunication surveillance and intelligence gathering, such as 

tapping mobile or land phone lines, without judicial oversight. Section 97B of the Act allows 

information collected under Section 97A to be admissible evidence at trial under the Evidence 

Act of 1872. 97 In FIDH’s view, this is clearly an arbitrary interference with the privacy provision 

of Article 17 of the ICCPR. Moreover, the admission of such evidence during a trial 

undermines respect for the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 14 of the ICCPR. 

FIDH is concerned about the elevated risk of using Sections 97A and Section 97B for harassing 

political opponents and recalls that an effective oversight mechanism, notably judicial 

oversight, is of critical importance. Moreover, it is vital that there are clear thresholds as to 

when intelligence powers can be used that require a sufficient level of reasonable suspicion, 

and there must be a clear time limit to how long the extraordinary intelligence surveillance 

powers can be used, and when a target must be notified of surveillance. Finally, the principle 

of due process relies upon adequate access to legal counsel, a right that is often ignored by 

intelligence agencies when interviewing suspects. 98 

FIDH urges the Bangladesh Parliament to conduct an immediate review of the legislation in 

order to ensure its continuing necessity as a tool to combat terrorism, and pass legislation 

amending the Telecommunication Act in order to require law enforcement and intelligence 

agencies to obtain a warrant before surveillance. Finally, there must be a serious and independent 

inquiry into human rights violations committed under the Act in order to ensure accountability 

of public officials. 

96. Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review of Bangladesh, 5 October 2009, A/HRC/11/18, para. 49. 

97. “National security or infringement on civil rights”, The Daily Star, 6 May 2006, available at www.thedailystar.net/law/2006/05/01/ 

index.htm. 

98. As emphasised by the Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights of the International Commission of 

Jurists (ICJ). See the report Assessing Damage, Urging Action, Geneva, ICJ, 2009, p. 70. 


Restriction of freedom of speech by the ATA 

FIDH is deeply concerned about the negative impact that the definition of terrorism embodied 

in the ATA could have on the exercise of fundamental freedoms embodied in the ICCPR, such 

as the right to freedom of expression (Article 19), the right of peaceful assembly (Article 21), 

the right to freedom of association (Article 22) and the right to take part in the conduct of 

public affairs (Article 25). This fear is motivated, inter alia, by Section 18 of the ATA which 

allows the Government to prohibit any organisation on “the reasonable basis of involvement 

in terrorist activities”. 

The recent banning of Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT) Bangladesh illustrates an example of such possible 

abuse. Hizb-ut-Tahrir Bangladesh is the Bangladeshi section of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, a pan-Islamic 

political organisation whose aim is to re-establish the Caliphate under Islamic law to unify 

all Muslim countries into one state. 99 According to Odhikar Human Rights Report 2009, the 

banning of this organisation “was conveyed through a press note on October 22, 2009. The 

press note states the government has banned Hizb-ut-Tahrir Bangladesh from October 10, 2009 

because it poses a threat to the security of the public in general”. Odhikar emphasizes the fact 

that “the issue of public security was used in the past by the Home Ministry to prevent [the 

present Prime Minister] Sheikh Hasina from returning to Bangladesh”. As stated in Odhikar 

Human Rights Report 2009, the Government banned HuT “without showing any evidence” 

of its involvement in violent or terrorist activities or any “anti-State activities”. 100 In another 

case, Mahmudur Rahman, Acting Editor of the daily “Amar Desh”, has been issued a four 

days remand under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2009. 101 

FIDH notes with concern that there is a serious risk that the ATA could be directed against 

political opponents rather than against terrorists and has too few legal safeguards to prevent 

miscarriages of justice. 

Mobilisation against the Anti-Terrorism Act 2009 

Many Bangladeshi legal experts and human rights activists strongly criticized the new legislation 

when the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance was promulgated in June 2008. 102 The renowned jurist, 

Prof. Dr. Shahdeen Malik stated: “In the last few decades, we have enacted more criminal laws 

than was necessary and another criminal law will not serve any purpose except for giving the 

law enforcement agencies another weapon to misuse and abuse and harass citizens”. 103 

Apparently, even the Bangladesh Government was aware that a specific anti-terrorist legislation 

was not necessary, as displayed by the Bangladesh reports to the Security Council Counter- 

Terrorism Committee. 104 In its 2002 Report, the Bangladesh Government stated that: 

99. See Taqiuddin an-Nabahani, The System of Islam (Nidham ul Islam), London, Al Khilafa Publications, p. 50. Available on www.hizbut-tahrir.org/PDF/EN/en_books_pdf/system_of_islam.pdf. 

100. 17 Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT) members were charged under sections 8/9(1)/10/13 of Anti Terrorism Act, 2009. 

101. www.fidh.org/Arbitrary-detention-of-Mr-Mahmudur-Rahman-and 

102. “Experts oppose anti-terror ordinance,” The South Asian, 16 July 2008 (available at http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/2008/ 

experts_oppose_antiterror_ordi.html). 

103. See “Legal experts oppose anti-terrorism ordinance,” The Daily Star, 18 June 2006 (available at www.thedailystar.net/story. 

phpnid=41371). 

104. Reports pursuant to Security Council resolution 1373 (2001). The reports are available at www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/resources/1373.html. 


“The Special Powers Act, 1974 empowers the Bangladesh Government with wide ranging 

powers to detain suspected persons without necessarily showing expressed reasons. It was 

drafted with a view to control, prevent and pre-empt prejudicial activities including terrorism in 

all its forms and manifestations. The schedule to this Act covers all offences under the “Arms 

Act of 1878” and “Explosive Substance Act of 1908”. The provisions of these statutes cover 

a wide range of activities generally recognized as terrorist acts. The two statutes also provide 

for mandatory sentencing, including death penalty, for certain categories of offences”. 105 

In the Report of July 2005, the Bangladesh Government further stated that “there are no records 

of recruitment of international terrorist groups in Bangladesh. Some local groups are engaged 

in criminal activities which are dealt with by the existing criminal laws of the Country”. 106 

As mentioned above, the Report of Bangladesh Government to the Security Council of July 

2005 states that the criminal laws existing before the adoption of the ATA could already 

deal with the “terrorist acts”. This viewpoint quickly reversed, however, after the bombing 

campaign allegedly carried out by the Jamaat al Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) in August of 

2005. In December 2005, then Law Minister Moudud Ahmed expressed the need for a new 

and comprehensive anti-terrorism law arguing that “the existing laws are not enough to deal 

with this type of violence”. 107 

The bombing that took place on August 17, 2005 belies Minister Moudoud’s claim. In connection 

to a bomb blast at the Motihar Police Station, seven members of JMB were sentenced for 

life in March 2009 under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. 108 FIDH also notes that two 

separate cases were filed by the police in relation to the killing of two judges on November 

14, 2005, one for murder under the Penal Code and another for bomb detonation under the 

Explosive Act. In this case, the High Court confirmed death sentences to the members of JMB 

accused of the killings. In his reaction to this ruling, Law Minister Moudud Ahmed expressed 

his satisfaction and said that “Bangladesh has proved that militants can be detected, arrested 

and put into trial.” 109 This statement contradicts his December claim that existing law is insufficient 

to prosecute those responsible for bombings. 

The ATA therefore appears to be nothing more than a political tool to prove to the Bangladeshi 

public and foreign partners that Bangladesh takes a “tough on crime” and strong anti-terrorist 

position. Not only are existing laws sufficient to dispose of the JMB bombing cases, but the 

ATA is a potential tool of repression and injustice. FIDH therefore urges Bangladesh to repeal 

the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2009. 

105. UN Document S/2002/1137, point 7. Emphasis added. 

106. UN Document S/2005/456, p. 5. 

107. See “Bangladesh plans anti-terror law ,” BBC News, 21 December 2005 (available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_ 

asia/4547874.stm). 

108. See “7 JMB men get life in Rajshahi,” The Daily Star, 23 March 2009 (available at www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details. 

phpnid=80925. 

109. See “Death sentence to 7 JMB kingpins upheld,” The Daily Star, 1 September 2006 (available at www.thedailystar.net/2006/09/01/ 

d6090101011.htm). 


V. Torture 

According to several interlocutors of the FIDH delegation, ill-treatment and torture have 

become so entrenched in the country that once someone is arrested it can be assumed that he 

or she that will be subject to abuse. The culture of forcibly extorting confessions is deeply 

rooted within the law enforcement agencies in Bangladesh and is reportedly considered a 

normal practice. Furthermore, FIDH interlocutors, including politicians who were in prison, 

consider that members and sympathizers of opposition political parties who are arrested are 

almost systemically subject to ill-treatment and torture. 

An inadequate legislation 

Bangladesh has the international obligation to ban torture in its domestic law. While the 

Constitution and Criminal Penal Code make several halting steps towards fulfilling these 

obligations, the process is not complete. For example, Bangladesh must fully respect Article 

7 of the ICCPR, which states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman 

or degrading treatment or punishment.” Accordingly, this provision is nearly duplicated in 

Article 35 (5) of the Constitution of Bangladesh, which states: “No person shall be subjected 

to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment.” 

In addition to the ICCPR, Bangladesh ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, 

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) on 5 October 1998, which codifies an 

absolute prohibition of torture. Article 1 of the CAT defines torture as when a “public official” 

intentionally inflicts “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental” for purposes of, 

inter alia, obtaining a confession, intimidation or coercion. Article 2(2) of the CAT reads: 

“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal 

political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.” 

The UN Committee Against Torture considers that “this includes any threat of terrorist acts” 

and “rejects absolutely any efforts by States to justify torture and ill-treatment as a means to 

protect public safety or avert emergencies in these and all other situations.” 110 

Bangladesh is obliged to incorporate the CAT’s rejection of torture under Article 4 (1), which 

requires state parties to “ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The 

same shall apply to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity 

or participation in torture.” The UN Committee Against Torture adds that such laws must 

be “in accordance, at a minimum, with the elements of torture as defined in article 1 of the 

Convention, and the requirements of article 4”. 111 

Although the Constitution of Bangladesh expressly prohibits torture, Bangladesh fails to create 

a specific definition of torture and therefore allows impunity of law enforcement officials to 

engage in torture. The provisions criminalizing offences against a person, enshrined in Chapter 

XVI of The Penal Code of 1860 (offences causing physical pain in Sections 319 to 338A and 

offences relating to wrongful confinement in Sections 339 to 358), never specify what qualifies 

as torture. Sections 330 and 331 of the Penal Code criminalize causing “grievous hurt” 

110. See the CAT General Comment No. 2 (Implementation of article 2 by State parties), CAT/C/GC/2, 24 January 2008, para. 5. 

111. CAT General Comment No. 2, CAT/C/GC/2, para. 8. 


in order to extort a confession or information leading to the detection of an offence, but not 

only do they fail to use the term torture or explicitly mention that public officials are similarly 

culpable under the law, but mental suffering is excluded from the provision altogether. 

FIDH takes note of governmental inaction towards remedying this situation. On 5 March 2009, 

MP Saber Hosain Chowdhury, with whom FIDH had the opportunity to speak and who had 

been arrested and tortured in the early 2000’s, submitted the Torture and Death in Custody 

Prevention Bill to Parliament, as a Private Member’s Bill. This Bill was tabled in Parliament 

on 10 September 2009, but there has been no move since. Despite this, the Minister for 

Foreign Affairs, Dr. Dipu Moni, informed the United Nations Human Rights Council during 

the Universal Periodic Review of Bangladesh in 2009 that Bangladesh had the “policy of zero 

tolerance on matters of extrajudicial killings, torture, and deaths in custody”. 112 

FIDH recalls that such a policy can not be reached without appropriate criminalisation of 

torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment, in accordance with 

the international commitments of Bangladesh under the CAT. 

A culture of impunity consecrated by Bangladeshi law 

The Constitution of Bangladesh is ambiguous on torture. While Article 35 (5) prohibits 

torture, Article 46 allows the Parliament to enact law to acquit “any person in the service of 

the Republic or any other person in respect of any act done by him in connection with…the 

maintenance or restoration or order in any area in Bangladesh or validate any sentence passed, 

punishment, forfeiture ordered, or other act done in any such area”. In other words, Article 

46 of the Constitution allows the Parliament to indemnify human rights violations of state 

officials, including torture, by enacting legislation. 

According to the Human Rights Committee, amnesty for acts of torture is not compatible with 

Article 7 of the ICCPR. 113 Moreover, recalling that the prohibition of torture is non-derogable 

and absolute, the Committee Against Torture considers that under the CAT “amnesties (…) 

violate the principle of non- derogability”. 114 

Furthermore, the Code of Criminal Procedure encourages a culture of impunity and protects 

the perpetrators of torture. Under Section 132 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no criminal 

complaint can be lodged against any State official without prior approval from the Government. 

This provision is questionable under Article 12 of the CAT which imposes on State parties to 

promptly and impartially investigate allegations of torture. It is also a violation of Article 13 

which states “that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory 

under [the] jurisdiction [of a State party] has the right to complain to, and to have his case 

promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities”. 

112. Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review of Bangladesh, 5 October 2009, A/HRC/11/18, para. 87. 

113. See HRC General Comment No 20: Article 7 (Prohibition of torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), 

para. 15. 

114. CAT General Comment No. 2, CAT/C/GC/2, para. 5. 


Impunity for Enforced disappearances 

Although Bangladesh is not yet a signatory to the International Convention for the Protection 

of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, it still has obligations under the ICCPR and the 

CAT to prevent cases of enforced disappearance. Under Article 10 of the CAT, state parties 

have the obligation to educate their police force about the prohibition of torture during arrest 

and detention. Article 11 requires state parties to periodically review arrest, interrogation and 

detention “with a view to preventing any cases of torture.” The ICCPR’s Article 9 prohibits 

arbitrary arrest or detention, requires that those being arrested are informed of the charges 

against them, are brought in front of a judge swiftly, and are entitled to compensation in the 

case of an illegal arrest or detention. 

As delineated by the BLAST 115 case, the High Court of Bangladesh has found that the Bangladeshi 

government fails to uphold this obligation to prevent enforced disappearances. Not only does 

the Code of Criminal Procedure fail to provide adequate safeguard from arbitrary arrest and 

enforced disappearances, but the government actively prevents media coverage of deaths in 

custody and has failed to grant visit requests to both the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, 

Summary or Arbitrary Executions and the Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and 

Lawyers. 116 

115. Supra, note 38. 

116. “Enforced disappearances must be halted”, Asian Legal Resource Centre, 24 August 2010, available at www.scoop.co.nz/stories/ 

WO1008/S00381/enforced-disappearances-must-be-halted.htm. 


VII. Conclusion and 

Recommendations 

Conclusion 

Although Bangladesh is party to many important human rights treaties, such as the ICCPR 

and the CAT, it also is yet to ratify several important documents that will ensure rights for 

its citizens and further adherence to international law. In addition, Bangladesh must fulfil 

its obligations to existing human rights mechanisms by allowing access for the UN Special 

Rapporteurs and furnishing initial reports to the HRC, CAT and the ICESCR. The National 

Human Rights Commission that was established in 2007 is a step in the right direction but 

lacks the appropriate resources and manpower to properly fulfil its mandate. 

An extremely broad range of crimes currently attracts the death penalty in Bangladesh. These 

include non-lethal crimes such as counterfeiting and smuggling, as well as less serious crimes 

such as kidnapping. This practice runs counter to both the ICCPR and the HRC’s directives 

on the issue, which mandate that the death penalty be applied only for the most serious lethal 

crimes. The further imposition of mandatory death sentences for certain crimes deprives the 

judiciary of discretion to take into account possible extenuating circumstances. 

FIDH and Odhikar also note grave problems with the administration of criminal justice in 

Bangladesh and the procedures of law enforcement. The standard police practice of arresting 

whomever is accused on the First Information Report, filed by the complainant, facilitates the 

use of the justice system as a form of popular justice in which neighbours retaliate for private 

disputes via the justice system. 

The ability of officers to arrest individuals suspected of so-called cognizable offences without 

a warrant violates the right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention. Section 54 of 

the Criminal Procedure Codes, which delineates the broad and vague grounds on which an 

officer may make an arrest without a warrant, has opened the door to abuse of police power 

that even the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has condemned. Section 61 of the Code, which 

provides for the infamous remand process, has been widely documented to facilitate torture 

and abuse of suspects while in police custody, often in order to exhort bribes or confessions. 

In a case involving deaths in police custody, BLAST and others v. Bangladesh, the Supreme 

Court called for an overhaul of the Criminal Procedure Code. 

The Bangladeshi trial system appears to be imbued with violations of due process and presumption 

of innocence principles. Bail is per se unavailable for several crimes, including all of those 

enumerated by the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act of 2000 and all defendants 

who are “reasonably suspected” to have committed homicide. 

Severe delay and backlog in the court system reportedly drags cases on for years, which is 

especially pernicious for those held for non-bailable offences or for those who could not afford 

bail. Speedy-trial courts have been established to try certain cases, although their use appears 


to be politically-motivated more than hastening the process of justice. Due to these delays, 

police exhort bribes to release detained suspects, and Court Clerks and Government lawyers 

often demand bribes to expedite their cases. Repressive and often inhumane prison conditions 

perpetuates this system of bribery and extortion, further violating international standards in 

administration of justice and the proper treatment of prisoners. Executions are carried out in 

jail by hanging. The method of execution is deprived of any legal basis in domestic legislation 

since other prisoners are forced into carrying out the executions of their peers. This practice 

clearly amounts to an inhuman and degrading treatment, if not to torture. 

Both the Special Powers Act of 1974 and the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 2009 govern the 

prosecution of terrorist activities. In light of the 2005 bombing campaign carried out by 

Jamaat-ul Mujahideen, a radical pan-Islamist organisation, against judges across Bangladesh, 

the need and obligation for the authorities to prosecute the authors of such outrageous attacks 

became clear. However, the ATA, like so many anti-terror laws passed around the world in 

the aftermath of 9/11, grants extraordinarily broad powers to the government, often violating 

the fundamental rights of its citizens. In addition, the ATA provides an extremely vague 

definition of terrorism, which violates the principle of legality and allows for abuse of police 

power, which is not consistent with definitions proposed at international level, notably by the 

UN Special Rapporteur on the respect of human rights while countering terrorism. 

The ATA’s grant of broad rights of surveillance to law enforcement and restrictions upon freedom 

of speech are further cause for concern. FIDH encourages the Bangladeshi government 

to frankly analyse the continuing necessity of all provisions of the ATA, and whether many of 

the crimes it addresses are not already covered by existing criminal law. 

Under the ICCPR and the CAT, Bangladesh has the obligation to ban torture in its domestic 

law. However, torture is not defined under its criminal law, as is required by the CAT. The 

Bangladesh Constitution allows parliament to pardon public officials accused or convicted of 

torture while the Code of Criminal Procedure requires prior governmental approval before a 

complaint of torture can be lodged against a political officials. FIDH is concerned that these 

factors, combined with the lenient procedural rules for unwarranted arrest and remand, contribute 

towards a culture of impunity for torture for both law enforcement and political officials. 

Based on those findings, FIDH and Odhikar issue the following 

recommendations: 

To the People’s Republic of Bangladesh: 

On the administration of criminal justice: 

– The Parliament and Ministry of Justice should amend the Code of Criminal Procedure according 

to the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court in the BLAST case and the Bangladesh 

Law Commission. 

– The Penal Code should define and criminalize torture as required by the CAT. 

– The judiciary should exert a close scrutiny on conditions of detention and interrogation by 

the police during the remand procedure, and declare inadmissible any statement which is 

established to have been made as a result of torture, in conformity with Articles 12 and 13 

of the UN Convention against Torture, and the prohibition of self-incriminating statements 

enshrined in Art. 35(4) of the Constitution of Bangladesh. 


– The immunity provisions for public officials that engage in torture within the Code of Criminal 

Procedure must be repealed in particular Section 132 of the Code, and other legal provisions 

which impede alleged victims of human rights violations from lodging complaints against 

State officials suspected of being the authors, instigators or accomplices of such acts. 

– Bangladesh should consider amending Article 46 of the Constitution in order to limit the power 

given to Parliament by excluding acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment 

or punishment from the scope of acts for which public officials can be indemnified. 

– FIDH considers that reservation to Article 14 of the CAT must be withdrawn and recommends 

to the competent Bangladeshi authorities to ensure that victims of torture receive reparation 

for the injuries suffered and benefit from an appropriate rehabilitation programme 

– Police investigations should be strengthened, in particular through material and forensic 

information collection, and proper training in those fields should be ensured to prevent 

arbitrary arrests based solely off of a spurious complaint or FIR and excessive reliance on 

confessions. 

– The backlog of the courts should be diminished, without creating a parallel system of special 

tribunals like the speedy trial courts, which may contradict the principle of equal protection 

under law. FIDH recalls that the right to a fair trial includes the right to be tried without 

undue delay (Art. 14.3 of the ICCPR). 

– Prison conditions should be improved in order to comport with relevant international human 

rights standards. Overcrowding in detention facilities should notably be addressed. 

The death penalty: 

Considering the large potential for abuse and violations of due process in Bangladesh, FIDH 

calls upon the authorities, as a first step towards abolition, to: 

– Examine existing law with a view towards diminishing the scope of crimes that attract the death 

penalty to only those with lethal consequences, in conformity with Art. 6 of the ICCPR. 

– All mandatory death penalty sentences should be repealed as unconstitutionally restricting 

the discretion and independence of the judiciary, as required under international standards, 

and as stressed by the High Court Division in its 1995 ruling. 

– Other prisoners may under no circumstances be delegated to carry out an execution, a practice 

that is not in conformity with the domestic legal framework and constitutes an inhuman and 

degrading treatment for concerned prisoners. 

– Make public statistics on the number of death sentences and executions to allow an informed 

public debate on the death penalty. 

– Appoint a committee of high level jurists to report on the application and conditions of 

implementation of the death penalty in the country. 

Reassess the need for anti-terrorism legislation: 

FIDH urges Parliament and the Ministry of Law to reassess the need for the ATA. If maintained, 

this law should definitely be amended: 

– If the ATA is maintained, it must be amended in order to eliminate vagueness in its wording 

and the potential for abuse in its application, including regarding the length of police custody, 

the systematic non-bailable character of the crimes, and the establishment of anti-terrorism 

special tribunals. 

– Judicial oversight should be instituted for all surveillance, searches, and wire tapping. 

– The ATA should not be used as a repressive tool against political dissidents. 

– FIDH urges the Bangladeshi government to take all available actions to prevent enforced 

disappearances and oversee and train police forces in proper arrest and detention practices 


Bolster the National Human Rights Commission: 

FIDH urges the Parliament to approve further allocation of funds for staff improvement and 

hiring within the NHRC in order to maintain the Commission’s effectiveness and independence 

without any hindrance from the government. 

Treaty Ratification: 

Bangladesh must withdraw its reservation to Article 14(1) of the CAT and to ratify the following 

international human rights instruments: 

– Optional Protocol to the ICESCR (1966), allowing individual complaints from citizens of 

member states 

– Optional Protocol to the ICCPR (1966), allowing individual complaints from citizens of 

member states 

– 2 nd Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (1989) 

– Optional Protocol to the CAT (2002), allowing site visits to the country and requiring establishment 

of National Preventive Mechanisms. 

– International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance 

(2006) 

– Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers & Members of Their 

Families (1990) 

To the international community 

– Third states are invited to raise the issues of concern addressed in this report and echo the 

afore-mentioned recommendations in the framework of their bilateral meetings with the 

government of Bangladesh at all levels. 

– Support civil society initiatives in favour of abolition in Bangladesh 

– Provide technical assistance in the field of criminal investigation, in particular concerning 

forensic and ballistic expertise and others methods that would allow to rely less systematically 

on confessions that are often obtained under duress. 

– To support efforts to develop professional and public human rights education and judicial 

and prosecutorial training 

– to condition its cooperation with the police and other forces of Bangladesh (like the RAB) 

to concrete progress in the field of the fight against impunity for extrajudicial killings and 

torture and to ensure transparency and accountability in all the actions undertaken. 


Annex 1 

Status of Commitment to International Human Rights 

Treaties of Bangladesh, 2010 1 

Treaty Signature Ratification Accession 

International Convention on the Elimination of Racial 

Discrimination (1965) 

International Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural 

Rights (1966) 

Optional Protocol to the ICESR (2008) 

Not signed 

11 June 1979 

5 Oct. 1998 

International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (1966) 6 Sept. 2000 

Optional Protocol to the ICCPR (1966) 

2nd Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, aiming at the 

abolition of the death penalty (1989) 

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms 

of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW, 1979) 

Not signed 

Not signed 

Optional Protocol to the CEDAW (1999) 6 Sept. 2000 6 Sept. 2000 

Convention Against Torture & Other Forms of Cruel, 

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 

(CAT, 1984) 

Optional Protocol to the CAT (2002) 

Not signed 

5 October 1998 

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 1989) 26 Jan.1990 3 August 1990 

Optional Protocol to the CRC on the involvement 

of children in armed conflict (2000) 

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of 

the Child on the sale of children child prostitution and 

child pornography (2000) 

Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All 

Migrant Workers & Members of Their Families (1990) 

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 

(CRPD, 2006) 

6 Sept. 2000 6 Sept. 2000 

6 Sept. 2000 6 Sept. 2000 

7 Oct. 1998 

9 May 2007 30 Nov. 2007 

Optional Protocol to the CRPD 12 May 2008 

International Convention for the Protection of All 

Persons from Enforced Disappearance (2006) 

Not signed 

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 16 Sept. 1999 April 2010 

6 Nov. 1984 

1. United Nations Treaty Collection. http://treaties.un.org/Pages/Treaties.aspxid=4&subid=A&lang=en (Accessed: 31 July 2010). 


Annex 2 

Declarations and/or Reservations of Bangladesh 

on Human Rights Treaties 

Human Rights 

Treaty 

Declarations/Reservations 

ICESCR Declarations of the Bangladesh government on the following Articles of ICESCR include: 1 

– Articles 2 and 3 pertains to the obligations of State Parties to progressively realize the 

economic, social and cultural rights of their citizens, and to guarantee that these rights 

will be exercised without discrimination and will be enjoyed equally by men and women. 

The Bangladesh government declared that these provisions, particularly aspects on the 

economic rights related to inheritance will be applied in accordance with the provisions of the 

Bangladesh Constitution. 

– Articles 7 and 8 on the rights to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work and 

the right to form and join trade unions will be applied “in conformity with the procedures 

established in the Constitution and the relevant legislation of Bangladesh”. 

– Articles 10 on the protection of the family and pregnant mothers including those working, 

and Articles 13 on the right to education, will be implemented progressively and based on the 

“existing economic conditions and development plans” of the government. 

ICCPR 

The Bangladesh government made one reservation and several declarations on certain Articles 

of the ICCPR. These include: 2 

– A reservation on the application of Article 14 par. 3(d) particularly on the right of the accused 

to be tried in his/her presence. Laws in Bangladesh allow an accused to be tried in his/her 

absence if the person is “a fugitive offender, or is one, who being required to appear before a 

court, fails to present himself or to explain the reasons for non-appearance to the satisfaction 

of the court.” 

– The Bangladesh government declared that due to financial constraints, it does not have 

any facility intended for the reformation and rehabilitation of prisoners. The provision of 

segregating juvenile offenders from adults as stipulated in the Covenant is complied with by 

the government. 

– On Article 11 prohibiting the imprisonment of a citizen for failure to fulfill a contractual 

obligation, the government declared this is generally consistent with the Constitution, “except 

in some very exceptional circumstances, where the law provides for civil imprisonment in 

case of willful default in complying with a decree.” The government further declared it will 

comply with Article in accordance with its “existing municipal law”. 

– On the principle of providing compensation for miscarriage of justice as stipulated in Article 

14 par. 6, the Bangladesh government has declared that while it recognizes the principle, it is 

unable to comply fully with this provision “for the time being”. However, it “intends to ensure 

full implementation of this provision in the near future.” 

CEDAW 

Articles 2 & 16 (1)(c): The two articles pertain to State Parties condemning all forms of 

discrimination against women and taking all steps to eliminate discrimination and ensure the 

equality of men and women in all spheres. The Bangladesh government does not consider as 

biding these provisions because of the conflict with Sharia law. 3 

OP - CEDAW 

CAT 

Using Article 10 (1) as basis, the government declared its refusal to undertake its obligations 

as stipulated in Articles 8 & 9 of the OP. These two articles pertain to the obligation of State 

Parties to cooperate with members of the Committee on CEDAW in the investigation and/ 

or examination of information or reports received by the Committee regarding serious or 

systematic human rights violations. This includes inviting Committee members to visit the 

territory of State Parties to conduct an inquiry or investigation on the information received. 4 

The government will apply Article 14 par. 1 in accordance with the country’s existing laws and 

legislations. This means the government will allow the Subcommittee on Prevention to fulfill 

its mandate by providing them “unlimited access to information on persons deprived of their 

liberty, their treatment and conditions of detention; unlimited access to all places of detention 

and the opportunity to interview persons deprived of their liberty in private”, for as long as 

these activities are allowed by or are not in conflict with, the laws of Bangladesh. 5 

Human Rights 

Treaty 

Declarations/Reservations 


CRC Reservations on the following Articles of the Convention were made by the government: 6 

– Art. 14, par. 1 which mandates State Parties to respect the right of children to freedom 

of thought, conscience and religion. 

– Article 21 which pertains to adoption of children will be permitted by the government 

in accordance with its laws and practices. 

OP – CRC on 

the Involvement 

of Children in 

Armed Conflicts 

12 

Article 3(2) on the minimum age of recruitment in the national armed forces and safeguards 

taken to ensure the voluntary character of the recruitment, the Bangladesh government 

declares “that the minimum age at which it permits voluntary recruitment into its national 

Armed Forces is sixteen years for non-commissioned soldiers and seventeen years for 

commissioned officers, with informed consent of parents or legal guardian, without any 

exception. 7 

1. http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspxsrc=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en (Accessed: 4 August 2010) 

2. http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspxsrc=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11-b&chapter=4&lang=en (4 August 2010) 


Annex 3 

Leading Cases on Death Penalty from 1987 to 2009 

No. Case Name Bench Reference Relevant laws & Sections 

1. Nausher Ali 

Sarder vs.State 

Appellate 

Division 

39 (1987) Dhaka 

Law Report 194 

Sections 302/34 of Penal Code-1860 and Section 

164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure-1898. 

2. The State vs. 

Fazal 

3. Majibur Rahman 

vs. State 

4 Nowsher Ali vs. 

State 

5. Dipok k. Sarker 

vs. The State 

6. Ibrahim Mollah & 

Ors vs. The State 

7. Shahjahan 

Biswas & others 

vs. The State 


Abdur Rashid 

9. Taleb Ali & Others 

vs. The State 

10. Kabul vs. The 

State 

11. M. Sana Alias 

Moni & others vs. 

The State 

12. Mizazul Islam @ 

Dablu vs. State 

13. State vs. 

Badshah Mollah 

14. State vs. Khalilur 

Rahman 

15. State vs. Manik 

Bala 

16. Abul Kashem & 

another vs. The 

State 

17. Hazrat Ali & 

Abdur Rahman 

vs. The State 

18. Shahjahan Manik 

& Farida Akter 

Rina vs. The 

State 


Imdad Ali Bepari 

20. State vs. Jahaur 

Ali & others 

Appellate 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

22. Abed Ali vs. State Appellate 

Division 

39 (1987) Dhaka 


39 (1987) Dhaka 


39 (1987) Dhaka 

Law Report 57 

40 (1988) Dhaka 


40 (1988) Dhaka 


40 (1988) Dhaka 


40 (1988) Dhaka 


40 (1988) Dhaka 


40 (1988) Dhaka 


40 (1988) Dhaka 


41 (1989) Dhaka 


41 (1989) Dhaka 

Law Report 11 

41 (1989) Dhaka 

Law Report 1 

41 ( 1989) Dhaka 


42 (1990) Dhaka 


42 (1990) Dhaka 


42 (1990) Dhaka 


42 (1990) Dhaka 


42 (1990) Dhaka 

Law Report 94 

42 (1990) Dhaka 


Sections 302/34, 364 of the Penal Code-1860 and 

Sections 154/114 of the Evidence Act- 1872. 

Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code-1860 and Section 




Section 302 of the Penal Code – 1860. 

Sections 302/34, 326/306 of the Penal Code-1860 

and Section 30 of the Evidence Act-1872. 

Sections 148, 325, 302/34 of the Penal Code-1860. 

Sections 302/34 & 201 of the Penal Code-1860 

and Section 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal 

Procedure 1898. 

Sections 302/34 & 201 of the Penal Code-1860. 


374 of Code of Criminal Procedure-1898. 

Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code-1860. 

Sections 302 of the Penal Code-1860. 

Sections 342 and 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure 

-1898. 

Sections 342 Code of Criminal Procedure -1898. 

Sections 26(2) of Special Powers Act 1974. 


164 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure. 

Sections 302/34, 303/34,379/411 of Penal Code- 

1860 and Section 118, 32, 30 of the Evidence Act- 

1872. 

Sections 302/34, 303/34,379/411 of the Penal Code- 

1860. 

Sections 302/34 of Penal Code-1860 and Section 


Section 302 of the Penal Code – 1860. 

Sections 265 G and 374 of the Code of Criminal 

Procedure – 1898. 

Sections 302/34, of the Penal Code-1860 

and Section 339B of the Code of Criminal 

Procedure-1898. 

Sections 302/34, of the Penal Code-1860 and 376 

of the Code of Criminal Procedure- 1898. 


23. Abu Taher 

Chowdhury vs. 

State 

24. Sk Shamsur 

Rahman vs. State 

25. Abdul Quddus vs. 

The State 

26. State vs. 

Mofazzal Hussain 

Pramanik 

27. The State vs. Md. 

Safiqul Islam 

28. Wajear Rahman 

Moral vs. The 

State 

29. State vs. Kalu 

Bapari 

30. State vs. Ali 

Kibria 

31. Tenu Miah vs. 

The State 

32 Abul Khair vs. 

The State 

33. Babor Ali Molla 

vs. State 

34. Hazarat Ali vs. 

State 

Appellate 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

35. State vs. Montu Appellate 

Division 

36 Abdur Rahman 

vs. State 

37. Akhtar Hossain 

vs. State 

38. Fulu Mohammad 

vs. State 

39. Mostain Mollah 

vs. State 

40. Taslimuddin vs. 

State 

41. Farid Karim vs. 

State 

42. Giasuddin and 5 

others vs State 

43. Hanif Gani vs. 

State 

44. Nurul Hoque vs 

State 

45. Sree Ranjit 

Kumar Pramanik 

vs. State 

46. Nowabul Alam & 

others vs. State 

47. Harun Sarker vs. 

State 

48. Abdus Sattar & 


49. Mojibur Rahman 

Gazi vs. State 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

42 (1990) Dhaka 


42 (1990) Dhaka 


43(1991) Dhaka 


43 (1991) Dhaka 

Law Report 65 

43 ( 1991) Dhaka 

Law Report 92 

43(1991) Dhaka 

Law Report 25 

43 (1991) Dhaka 


43(1991) Dhaka 


43(1991) Dhaka 


44 (1992) Dhaka 


44 (1992) Dhaka 

Law Report 10 

44 (1992) Dhaka 

Law Report 51 

44 (1992) Dhaka 


44 (1992) Dhaka 


44 (1992) Dhaka 

Law Report 83 

44 (1992) Dhaka 


44 (1992) Dhaka 


44 (1992) Dhaka 


45 (1993) Dhaka 


45 (1993) Dhaka 


45 (1993) Dhaka 


45 (1993) Dhaka 


45 (1993) Dhaka 


45 (1993) Dhaka 


45 (1993) Dhaka 

Law Report 49 

46 (1993) Dhaka 


46 (1993) Dhaka 


Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code- 1860. 

Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 

-1898 & 103(3) Constitution of People’s Republic of 

Bangladesh. 

Section 302 of the Penal Code-1860 and Sections 

32(1), 8, 154 of Evidence Act- 1872. 

Section 302 of the Penal Code-1860, Sections 118, 

134, 45, 137 of the Evidence Act 1872 and Section 


Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code-1860 and 

Sections 17 and 23 of the Evidence Act-1872. 

Section 302/114 of the Penal Code-1860 and Section 

5 of the Evidence Act-1872. 

Section 302 of the Penal Code-1860. 

Section 302 of the Penal Code-1860 and Section 164 

of the Code of Criminal Procedure-1898. 



Section 149/302 of the Penal Code-1860. 



Section 302/34 of the Penal Code-1860 and Sections 

154, 155, 30 of the Evidence Act -1872. 

Section 302/34 and 302/109 of the Penal Code-1860. 

Section 300, 299, 304 part 1, 302/34 of the Penal 

Code-1860. 

Section 302 of the Penal Code-1860, Section 30 and 

45 of the Evidence Act 1872 and Section 374 of the 

Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. 

Section 302 of the Penal Code-1860 and Sections 

154 and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure-1898. 

Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure -1898 

and Section 302/34, 325 and 526 of the Penal Code 

1860. 


Section 34 of the Evidence Act-1872. 


Sections 3 and 8 of the Evidence Act-1872. 

Section 302 of the Penal Code-1860 and Section 

27,8 and 30 of the Evidence Act 1872. 

Sections 302/149 and 304 part 1 of the Penal Code- 

1860. 

Sections 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure-1898 

and Section 302/34 of the Penal Code. 

Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code-1860 and 164 of 

the Code of Criminal Procedure- 1898. 


Section 238 of the Code of Criminal Procedure-1898. 

Sections 148/307/302/34 of the Penal Code-1860 

and Section 5 of the Evidence Act. 

Sections 109/201/302/34 of the Penal Code-1860. 



Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure- 1898. 


50. State Vs Fulu 

Mohammad & 6 

others 

51. Abdul Khaleque 

vs. State 

52. Zahiruddin Son 

of Abdul Hye vs 

State 

53. State vs. Balai 

Chandra Sarker 

54. Sate vs. Abul 

Kalam Azad 

55. State vs Lokman 

Miah 

56. State vs. Abul 

Howlader 

57. Arzan @ Iman Ali 

vs. State 

58. State vs Khalilur 

Rahman 

59. State vs. Tajul 

Islam and others 

60. Abdul Aziz Mina 

and others vs 

State 

61. State vs. Raja 

Abdul Majid & 


62. State vs. 

Raisuddin & 


63. State vs. 

Mesbahuddin 

64. State vs. Kamal 

Ahmed 


Hashem 

66. State vs. 

Afazuddin Sikder 

67. State vs. Hamida 

Khatun 

68. State vs. Hosen 

Shikh 

69. State vs. 

Innocent N 

Egbunine 

70. State vs. 

Jamaluddin 

71. State vs. 

Giasuddin & 


72. Shahjahan Vs. 

State 

73. State vs. Md. 

Bachchu Mia & 

Abdul Mannnan & 

5 others 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

74. State vs. Tota Mia High Court 

Division 

46 (1993) Dhaka 


46 (1993) Dhaka 


47 (1995) Dhaka 

Law Report 92 

47 (1995) Dhaka 


48 (1996) Dhaka 


48 (1996) Dhaka 


48 (1996) Dhaka 


48 (1996) Dhaka 


48 (1996) Dhaka 


48 (1996) Dhaka 


48 (1996) Dhaka 


48 (1996) Dhaka 


48 (1996) Dhaka 


49 (1997) Dhaka 


49 (1997) Dhaka 


50 (1998) Dhaka 

Law Report 17 

50 (1998) Dhaka 


50 (1998) Dhaka 


50 (1998) Dhaka 


50 (1998) Dhaka 


50 Dhaka Law 

Report 67 

51 (1999) Dhaka 


51 (1999) Dhaka 


51 (1999) Dhaka 


51 (1999) Dhaka 


Sections 34/148/302/325/326 of the Penal 

Code-1860.and Section 509 A Code of Criminal 


Sections 302 of the Penal Code-1860 and Section 


Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – 

1898 and Section 302 of the Penal Code- 1860. 

Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – 1898. 

Sections 3 and 8 of the Evidence Act – 1872. 


1898 and Sections 302/326/324 of the Penal Code- 

1860. 

Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – 1898 

and Sections 326/302/307 of the Penal Code-1860. 

Section 300 of the Penal Code – 1860 and Section 

374 of Code of the Criminal of Procedure. 

Sections 300 & 396 of the Penal Code-1860. 

Section 410 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure – 

1898. 

Section 5 of the Evidence Act – 1872 and Sections 

304 part I /149 of Penal Code – 1860. 

Sections 154, 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 

– 1898. 

Section 3, 5, 30, 80 Evidence Act – 1872. 

Section 300 of the Penal Code – 1898 


1898 

Section 25(B) of the Special Powers Act – 1974 

Section 164(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure – 

1898 


Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

Section 161/ 396 of the Penal Code-1860. 

Sections 302 of the Penal Code & 374 of the Code 

of Criminal Procedure-1898. 

Section 374/ 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure- 

1898 and Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code-1860. 

Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and 


Section 374/376(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 

and Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Penal Code. 

Section 374/ 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 

and Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code. 

Section 19(1)(4) of the Narcotics Control Act 1990 

and Sections 374 of the Code of the Criminal 


Section 302 of the Penal Code and Section 374 of 

the Code of the Criminal Procedure. 

Sections148 & 302/149 of the Penal Code-1860. 

and Sections 376 of the Code of the Criminal 


Section 302 of the Penal Code 1860 and Section 376 

of the Code of the Criminal Procedure-1898. 

Section 302/ 202 of the Penal Code 1860 and 

Section 30 of the Evidence Act 1872. 

Section 302 of the Penal Code 1860, Section 164 of 

the Code of the Criminal Procedure-1898 and Section 

32(1) of the Evidence Act-1872. 


75. State vs. Babul 

Hossain 


Khosbor Ali 

77. State vs. Rakibul 

Hossain Alias 

78. Ansar (Md) Chan 

Mia vs. State 

79. State Vs. Abu 

Musa @ Shapir 

Bap 

80. State vs. 

Shahjaahan 

81. Md. Shamim 

ailias Shamim 

Skider & others 

vs. State 

82. State vs. Lt. 

Colonel Farook 

Rahman 


Barek & others 

84. State vs. Monu 

Mia & others 

85. Giasuddin & 

another vs. State 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

86. Harish vs. State High Court 

Division 

87. State vs. Abdus 

Samad @ Samad 

Ali 

88. State vs. Rafiqul 

Islam Alias 

Gadan 

89. State vs. Kabel 

Molla 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

90. State vs. Moslem High Court 

Division 

91. Osena Begum vs. 

State 

92. Abul Khair vs. 

State 

93 State vs. Ershad 

Sikder 

94. Moinul Haque vs. 

State 

95. Ershad Ali Sikder 

vs. State 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

96. Mukul vs. State Appellate 

Division 

97. Abul Bashir vs. 

State 

98. State vs. Mir 

Hossain 

99. Abul Kashem vs. 

State 

100. State vs. Ershad 

Ali Sikder 

101 State vs. Shah 

Alam 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

52 (2000) Dhaka 


52 (2000) Dhaka 


52 (2000) Dhaka 


53 (2001) Dhaka 


53 (2001) Dhaka 

Law Report 81 

53 (2001) Dhaka 

Law Report 58 

53 (2001) Dhaka 


53 (2001) Dhaka 


54 (2002) Dhaka 

Law Report 28 

54 (2002) Dhaka 

Law Report 60 

54 (2002) Dhaka 


54 (2002) Dhaka 


54 (2002) Dhaka 


55 (2003) Dhaka 

Law Report 61 

55 (2003) Dhaka 


55 (2003) Dhaka 


55 (2003) Dhaka 


55 (2003) Dhaka 


55 (2003) Dhaka 


56 (2004) Dhaka 

Law Report 81 

56 (2004) Dhaka 

Law Report 87 

56 (2004) Dhaka 


56 (2004) Dhaka 


56 (2004) Dhaka 


56 (2004) Dhaka 


56 (2004) Dhaka 


56 (2004) Dhaka 


Sections 10(1)/14 of Nari Shisu Nirjaton (Bishes 

Bidhan) Act-1995 and Section 161 of the Code of the 

Criminal Procedure 1898. 

Section 302 of the Penal Code and Section 376 of 

the Code of the Criminal Procedure- 1898. 

Sections 396/34 of the Penal Code and Section 340 

of the Code of the Criminal Procedure- 1898. 

Sections 302 of the Penal Code and Section 154 and 

161 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure-1898. 

Section 302 of the Penal Code and Article 103 of the 

Constitution of People’s Republic of Bangladesh. 


Constitution of People’s Republic of Bangladesh 

Section 302/34 of the Penal Code and Section 374 

of the Code of the Criminal Procedure-1898. 

Sections 302/34/120B of the Penal Code-1860. 

Sections 302/21/120B of the Penal Code-1860. 

Sections 302/21/34 of the Penal Code-1860. 


Section 6(4) of Nari O Shishu Nirjaton (Bishes Bidhan) 

Ain 1995. 





Ain 1995. 

Sections 10(1)/14 of Nari O Shishu Nirjaton 

(Bishes Bidhan ) Ain 1995. 

Sections 302/114/34/144 of the Penal Code 1860. 

Sections302/34/109 of the Penal Code 1860. 


Ain 1995. 


Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. 

Sections 10(1) & 14 of Nari O Shishu Nirjaton (Bishes 

Bidhan ) Ain 1995. 

Sections 302/326/307 of the Penal Code 1860. 

Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code 1860. 





102 State vs. Ershad 

Ali Sikder 

High Court 

Division 

56 (2004) Dhaka 


Sections 302/201/34 of the Penal Code 1860. 

103 State vs. Billal 

Hossain 

High Court 

Division 

56 (2004) Dhaka 


Section 302 /34 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 

– 1898. 

104. State vs. Saiful 

Islam 

High Court 

Division 

56 (2004) Dhaka 



105. State vs. Abdul 

Hatem 

High Court 

Division 

56 (2004) Dhaka 


Sections 302 of the Penal Code 1860. 

106 State vs. Bahar 

Miah 

High Court 

Division 

56 (2004) Dhaka 


Section 11(1) of Nari O Shishu Nirjaton 

(Bishes Bidhan) Ain 1995. 

107 State vs. Md Abu 

Taher 

High Court 

Division 

56 (2004) Dhaka 


Section 10(1) of Nari O Shishu Nirjaton (Bishes 


Sections 235, 239, 202 of the Code of Criminal 


108 State vs. Md. 

Awal Fakir 

High Court 

Division 

56 (2004) Dhaka 


Sections 6(2)/10(1) of Nari O Shishu Nirjaton (Bishes 


109. Ershad Ali 

Shikdar vs. State 

Appellate 

Division 

57 (2005) Dhaka 

Law Report 75 

Section 302 of the Penal Code 1860. 

Section 8 of the Evidence Act – 1872. 

Section 374of the Code of Criminal Procedure – 1898. 

110 Rafiqul Islam 

Mullah vs. State 

High Court 

Division 

57 (2005) Dhaka 



111 State vs. Md. 

Delwar Hossain 

High Court 

Division 

57 (2005) Dhaka 



112 State vs. Nazrul 

Islam 

High Court 

Division 

57 (2005) Dhaka 



113 State vs. Anjuara 

Khatun 

High Court 

Division 

57 (2005) Dhaka 


Sections 302 of the Penal Code 1860. 

114. Abul Kalam Azad 

Alias Ripon vs. 

State 

Appellate 

Division 

58 (2006) Dhaka 

Law Report 26 

Section 10(1) of Nari O Shishu Nirjaton (Bishes 

Bidhan) Ain 1995. 

Sections 161 and 162 of the Code of Criminal 


115. State vs. 

Washikur 

Rahman & 

another 

Appellate 

Division 

58 (2006) Dhaka 

Law Report 60 

Sections 302/303/34 of the Penal Code1860. 


Mokammel 

Hyeath Khan 

High Court 

Division 

58 (2006) Dhaka 


Sections 147/148//149/302/114/34 of the Penal 

Code-1860. 

117. State vs. Mukul 

Swapon 

High Court 

Division 

58 (2006) Dhaka 

Law Report 40 

Sections 302/333/224 of the Penal Code -1860. 

118. Abdul Mannan 

Alias Mona Miah 

vs. State 

High Court 

Division 

58 (2006) Dhaka 

Law Report 91 




Shahjahan 

High Court 

Division 

58 (2006) Dhaka 



120. State vs. Maku 

Rabi Das 

High Court 

Division 

58 (2006) Dhaka 



121. Ibrahim (Md) & 


High Court 

Division 

58 (2006) Dhaka 




Kaloo 

High Court 

Division 

58 (2006) Dhaka 





Shahidul Islam 

alias Shahid & 


High Court 

Division 

58 (2006) Dhaka 


Section 302/34 of the Penal Code-1860. 

124. Iftekhar Hasan 

@ Almamun & 


Appellate 

Division 

59 (2007) Dhaka 

Law Report 36 

Sections 302/324/34 of the Penal Code. 

125. State vs. Al Hasib 

Bin Jamal Hasib 

& 5 others 

High Court 

Division 

59 (2007) Dhaka 


Sections 302/120B/109/34 of the penal Code-1860. 


Roushan Mondol 

@ Hashem 

High Court 

Division 

59 (2007) Dhaka 

Law Report 72 

Section 83 of Penal Code – 1860. 

Sections 5(3), 7(2) of Children Act – 1974. 

Section 164 of the Code Criminal Procedure – 1898. 


127. Uzzal Alias Elias 

Hossain vs. State 

128. State vs. Kajal 

Ahmed Jalaili 

129. Mukter Hossain 

Khan vs. State 

130 State vs. Matiur 

Rahman 

131. State vs. Abdul 

Kader 

132. State vs. Aynul 

Haque Mollah 

133. State vs. Moniul 

Hoque @ Ripon 

another 

134. State vs. Naimul 

Islam @ Mainul 

Islam & Another 

135. State vs. Nitish 

Mondol & others 


Salauddin @ Tipu 

& others 

137 State vs Anowar 

Hossain pinto 

alias Anowar 

Hossain & 

Another 

138 Abdul Hannan vs 

State 

139 State vs Anjali 

Debi alias Monju 

Debi 

140 State vs Hamidul 

and others 

141 State vs Fazlur 

Rahman 

Tonmoy@ Taposh 

and another 

142 State vs Md 

Rafique 

143 State vs Resalder 

Moslemuddin 

and others 

144 State vs Suman 

Saha and Another 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

Appellate 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

High Court 

Division 

59 (2007) Dhaka 


59 (2007) Dhaka 


60 (2008) Dhaka 

Law Report 44 

60 (2008) Dhaka 

Law Report 04 

60 (2008) Dhaka 


60 (2008) Dhaka 


60 (2008) Dhaka 


60 (2008) Dhaka 


60 (2008) Dhaka 


60 (2008) Dhaka 


61 (2009) Dhaka 


61 (2009) Dhaka 


61 (2009) Dhaka 


61 (2009) Dhaka 


61 (2009) Dhaka 


61 (2009) Dhaka 


61 (2009) Dhaka 


61 (2009) Dhaka 


Sections 7, 9(1) (2) of Nari O Shishu Nirjaton 


Section 32, 157 of the Evidence Act – 1872. 

Sections 364/302/109/120b/34of the Penal Code. 


Section 106 of the Evidence Act- 1872. 


Sections 364/302/201/34 of the Penal Code 1860. 


Sections 302/34/364 of the Penal Code 1860 

and Section 374 of the Code of the Criminal 


Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code and Section 154 

of the Code of the Criminal Procedure 1898. 

Section 23(2), (4) of Acid Crime Control Act - 2002. 

Sections 147/148/149/364/342/325/326/302/384/114 

/109 of the Penal Code-1860. 

Sections 339B, 376 of Penal Code 1860. 

Section 302 of Penal Code-1860. 


Ain 1995. 

Sections 302/34/109 of Penal Code-1860. 

Sections 302/ 149 of Penal Code-1860. 

Sections 2Gha, 2 Chha, 8, 12 of Nari O Shishu 

Nirjaton (Bishes Bidhan ) Ain 1995. 

Sections 302/109 of Penal Code-1860. 

Sections 396 of Penal Code-1860. 


Annex 4 

Persons met by the FIDH/Odhikar mission 

Authorities 

– Mr. Justice Md. Fazlul Karim, Chief 

Justice of Bangladesh 

– Barrister Shafiq Ahmed Minister, Ministry 

of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs 

– Justice Amirul Kabir Chowdhury, 

Chairman, National Human Rights 

Commission 

– Justice Md. Abdur Rashid, Chairman, 

Bangladesh Law Commission 

– Mr. Mahbubey Alam, Attorney General 

for Bangladesh 

– Mr. Abdus Sobhan Sikder, Secretary, 

Ministry of Home Affairs 

– Mr. Ashraful Islam Khan, Inspector 

General of Prisons 

Members of Parliament 

– Mr. Hasanul Huq Inu, Member of 

Parliament 

– Mr. Saber Hossain Chowdhury, Member 

of Parliament 

Civil society 

– Mr. Farhad Mazhar, Advisor, Odhikar 

– Dr. C R Abrar, President, Odhikar 

– Ms. Taleya Rahman, Executive Director, 

Democracy Watch 

– Farida Akhter, Executive Director, Policy 

Research for Development Alternatives 

(UBINIG) 

– Dr. Mizanur Rahman, Professor, 

Department of Law, Dhaka University 

and Executive Director, Empowerment 

through Law of the Common People 

(ELCOP) 

– Ms. Sultana Kamal, Executive Director, 

Ain O Salish Kendro (ASK) 

– Dr. Shahdeen Malik, Director, School of 

Law, BRAC University and Treasurer, 

Bangladesh Institute of Law and 

International Affairs (BILIA) 

– Dr. Tasneem Siddiqui, Chairperson, 

RMMRU 

– Dr. Saira Rahman Khan, Associate 

Professor, School of Law, BRAC 

University, Dhaka 

Judges and lawyers 

– Justice Shamim Hasnain, High Court 

Division of the Supreme Court 

– Barrister Moudud Ahmed, Former Law 

Minister and Senior Advocate, Supreme 

Court of Bangladesh 

– Mr. A F Hassan Ariff, Former Adviser 

to the Ministry of Law, Justice and 

Parliamentary Affairs under the Caretaker 

Government in 2008 and Senior Advocate, 

Supreme Court of Bangladesh 

– Mr. Khandakar Mahbub Hossain, 

President, Supreme Court Bar Association 

– Mr. Khan Saifur Rahman, Senior 

Advocate, Supreme Court of Bangladesh 

– Mr. Anisul Huq, Advocate, Supreme Court 

of Bangladesh 

– Mr. Saleh Uddin, Advocate, Supreme 

Court of Bangladesh 

Journalists 

– Mr. Mahmudur Rahman, Acting Editor, 

The Daily Amar Desh 

– Mr. Nurul Kabir, Editor, New Age 

Embassies 

– Delegation to the European Commission 

to Bangladesh 

– French Embassy 

– People prosecuted under the ATA and 

families of death row prisoners 


Establishing the facts – Investigative and trial observation missions 

Keep your eyes open 

Through activities ranging from sending trial observers to organising international investigative missions, FIDH has developed, 

rigorous and impartial procedures to establish facts and responsibility. Experts sent to the field give their time to FIDH 

on a voluntary basis. 

FIDH has conducted more than 1 500 missions in over 100 countries in the past 25 years. These activities reinforce FIDH’s 

alert and advocacy campaigns. 

Supporting civil society – Training and exchange 

FIDH organises numerous activities in partnership with its member organisations, in the countries in which they are based. 

The core aim is to strengthen the influence and capacity of human rights activists to boost changes at the local level. 

Mobilising the international community – Permanent lobbying before intergovernmental bodies 

FIDH supports its member organisations and local partners in their efforts before intergovernmental organisations. FIDH 

alerts international bodies to violations of human rights and refers individual cases to them. FIDH also takes part inthe 

development of international legal instruments. 

Informing and reporting – Mobilising public opinion 

FIDH informs and mobilises public opinion. Press releases, press conferences, open letters to authorities, mission reports, 

urgent appeals, petitions, campaigns, website… FIDH makes full use of all means of communication to raise awareness of 

human rights violations. 

Odhikar, a human rights organisation, is committed to uphold the civil, political, economic, social and cultural 

rights of the people. Odhikar has been monitoring the human rights situation in Bangladesh since its inception 

on October 10, 1994 and advocating and promoting human rights. 

Odhikar monitors the human rights situation in the light of the protection ensured under international humanitarian laws 

and the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Odhikar also addresses national and global concerns 

expressed in various forms that may not have legal bindings but have direct or indirect impact on the dignity of lives and 

persons of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Right to life, prevention of torture, freedom of expression, concerns of 

religious and ethnic minority communities, women and workers, etc., are some of the areas that are directly monitored. 

Odhikar maintains a strong network of human rights defenders and given the difficulty and challenges they are facing, 

increasingly concentrating on developing the capacity of the human rights defenders coming from all walks of life. Odhikar 

emphasises on enacting a law based on the UDHR and monitors institutional development in this regard. Fact-finding 

of incidents of human rights violations and documentation of human rights abuses receive priority in terms of immediate 

concerns. 

For more on Odhikar and its publication, visit its website at: www.odhikar.org 

FIDH - International Federation for Human Rights 

17, passage de la Main-d’Or - 75011 Paris - France 

CCP Paris: 76 76 Z 

Tel: (33-1) 43 55 25 18 / Fax: (33-1) 43 55 18 80 

www.fidh.org 

Director of the publication: Souhayr Belhassen 

Editor: Antoine Bernard 

Authors: Laurie Berg, Mouloud Boumghar, 

Nymia Pimentel Simbulan 

Design: Bruce Pleiser 

Imprimerie de la FIDH - Dépôt légal Octobre 2010 - FIDH ISSN en cours - Fichier informatique conforme à la loi du 6 janvier 1978 (Déclaration N°330 675)

FIDH 

represents 164 

human rights organisations 

on 

5 continents 

of person. Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery 

or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5: No one shall be subjected to 

torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition 

everywhere as a person before the law. Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination 

to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this 

Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Article 8: Everyone has the right to an effective remedy 

by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or 

by law. Article 9: No one 

shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, 

• FIDH takes action for the protection of victims of human rights violations, 

for the prevention of violations and to bring perpetrators to justice. 

About FIDH 

• A broad mandate 

FIDH works for the respect of all the rights set out in the Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights: civil and political rights, as well as 

economic, social and cultural rights. 

• A universal movement 

FIDH was established in 1922, and today unites 164 member organisations 

in more than 100 countries around the world. FIDH coordinates and supports 

their activities and provides them with a voice at the international level. 

• An independent organisation 

Like its member organisations, FIDH is not linked to any party or religion 

and is independent of all governments. 

Find information concerning FIDH 164 member organisations on www.fidh.org

BANGLADESH: Criminal justice through the prism of capital ... - FIDH

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?